Proportional structural effects of formative indicators

By George R. Franke, Kristopher J Preacher, Edward E. Rigdon. 2008

104 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4b08485b1b37891c28ca012374e0c7f5527e77bb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Advancing formative measurement models (2008, methodology): “Note that the choice of scaling method can affect substantive conclusions as the significance of different relationships in the model with a formatively-measured construct may vary depending of how the scale of the latter is set (see Franke et al., 2008-this issue).”
Formative Vs. Reflective Measurement Model: Guidelines for Structural Equation Modeling Research (2020, background): “The item weights indicate whether or not an indicator can explain a significant portion of the variance of a formative construct ([36]; [37]).”
How University Entrepreneurship Support Affects College Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions: An Empirical Analysis from China (2021, background): “Thus, this approach makes researchers doubt the independence of the formative latent variables’ concept [97] and leads to interpretational confounding.”
Under Positive Pressure (2016, background): “As outlined by Franke, Preacher, and Rigdon (2008), a formative specification of CSR implementation is more appropriate for the items developed by Maignan et al. (1999).”
Reflective and formative metrics of relationship value: a commentary essay (2009, background): “…test of specification rather than a stand-alone test and in their “Consideration 5”, they allude to an important point that other authors (Franke et al., 2008; Wilcox et al., 2008) note, the specification of a formative latent variable depends on the outcome variables of the latent…”
A Critical Analysis of the Workplace Creativity Criterion Space (2012, background): “Using this approach, the relative weight for each dimension is derived from its statistical loading (i.e., beta weight) on the latent COE construct when it is predicting distal criterion variables (see Franke et al., 2008; Ruiz, Gremler, Washburn, & Carrion, 2008).”
The MIMIC model and formative variables: problems and solutions (2013, background): “2011), there are significant areas of disquiet around the formative model (e.g. Borsboom et al. 2003; Cadogan and Lee 2013; Edwards 2011; Franke et al. 2008; Howell et al. 2007a; Lee and Cadogan 2013; Wilcox et al. 2008).”
Incorporating Formative Measures into Covariance-Based Structural Equation Models (2011, background): “This, however, is clearly specific to the particular illustrative example at hand and does not mean that proportionality constraints will necessarily hold in other empirical applications (for a violation of proportionality constraints, see Franke et al. 2008).”
The Fallacy of Formative Measurement (2011, methodology): “Moreover, using measures that refer directly to the construct should help satisfy the proportionality constraints that are effectively imposed on the relationships linking x1, x2, and x3 to the outcomes of Z (Franke et al., 2008).”