Dear Muhammad, I am sorry, I need clarification: better that what? In general, HTMT is a common approach to gain insights into discriminant validity and very useful - but only I you chose to compare traits that are not to far away from one another, otherwise the results become trivial. A more sophisticated approach would be the analysis of nomological networks not just by means of manifest correlations (like Pearson's r) but by latent structural equation models. I prefer the latter, however, also manifest structural equation models work well - they just tend to underestimate the relationship between two traits which might sometimes turn out to be a problem especially for discriminant validity.

Use the HTMT criterion to assess discriminant validity! If the HTMT value is below 0.90, discriminant validity has been established between two reflective constructs. If you like to obtain the HTMT_Inference results, you need to run the bootstrapping routine. When starting the bootstrapping routine, it is important that you select the option “Complete Bootstrapping”. Then, in the bootstrapping results report, you find the bootstrapped HTMT criterion results in the section “Quality Criteria”.

Take a look at the following video to see how to use SmartPLS to get HTMT results:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0Oy-St77L4&feature=youtu.be

For detailed explanations of the HTMT criterion for discriminant validity assessment in variance-based structural equations modeling, see Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. 2015. A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-based Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1): 115-135. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11747-014-0403-8

If HTMT should be less than 1. Lower the values are higher is the discriminant validity. 

@arumugam, I have question. If the HTMT ratio calculated after the bootstrapping and it is found that the HTMT ratio between construct and sub-construct is more than 1, is it ok? Or HTMT ratio is only applied among constructs? Thank you

This link may help you.

HTMT (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11747-014-0403-8)

and

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10 ... 0403-8.pdf

Hi! 

Does it possible to calculate the HTMT ratio in Amos or EQS?

Thanks!

I have not done it before in Amos. But its clear in PLS-SEM.

hi read this article

best

Is it possible to conduct such analysis in AMOS?

HTMT criterion measures the average correlations of the indicators across constructs. The acceptable levels of discriminant validity (< 0.90) as suggested by Henseler et al. (2015).

It is recommended for identifying distinctiveness of the constructs but should be used taking 0.85 or 0.90 cautiously. its limitations should be cared.

The threshold of HTMT is arguable, most of the publications of Henseler et al and Hair et al. recommend value should be below 0.9.

Actually it should be below 0.85

https://raep.emnuvens.com.br/raep/article/view/1545

HTMT ratio must be less than 1.00 (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015).

This article explains it well: Gaskin, J., Godfrey, S., & Vance, A. (2018). Successful system use: It’s not just who you are, but what you do. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 10(2), 57-81.

What do I do, if the HTMT is like 1.015?

I am of the opinion that the acceptance and rejection criterion should be set because going by the position of Henry and Roshan a decision region is very important like John said when it's less than 1.00 but what of if it's greater than 1.00 as it was asked by Joachim. Please guide us on the decision rule of HTMT so that we the young researcher can learn from your conclusion. Thanks

HTMT > 0.9 or even >1 says that the latent constructs are not distinguishable, right? Does this mean; I have to resort the items along these two constructs like trial and error to make them more distinguishable? and what should I do, if this issue cannot be fixed by resorting the items? run a new EFA?

Uuuh, I guess I know why this happened. I developed a higher order construct out of my 4 latent constructs, where you have all the indicators of the latent constructs also in the higher order construct, when you do this in SmartPLS3. However I have some issues with HTMT > 0.9:-( need to resolve this

Joachim Hafkesbrink did you find out what to do with HTMT bigger than 0.9?

Sara Hoseingholizade , I found out why HTMT is > 1, because I used a higher order latent construct on the basis of a repeated indicator approach, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRND-H-hQQw&t=648s

Thanks a lot, Joachim Hafkesbrink . That was quite insightful.

Thanks a lot for such an insightful responses, it's really helpful

SmartPLS 3 highlights HTMT values above o.8 in red. What does that mean? Should that be the rule of thumb for HTMT?

Joachim Hafkesbrink Thanks a lot for this video

yet i didn't understand, how can i solve the issue of HTMT value > 0.90? please guide me precisely.