Questions about formative measurement

By James B. Wilcox, Roy D. Howell, Einar Breivik. 2008

255 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Information Systems and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5d6689dd7e308cb78868f3b0083985e588adbbeb

How researchers see this paper

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

In Education

In Information Systems and Management

Citations in the corpus

Reflective and formative metrics of relationship value: a commentary essay (2009, background): “With respect to correct conceptualization, the question of formative versus reflective specification is not as easily decided as the issue might appear at first sight--wrongly conceptualizing formative specifications can lead to major problems, just as can wrongly conceptualizing reflective specific”
The Fallacy of Formative Measurement (2011, background): “This problem is a manifestation of interpretational confounding (Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000; Howell et al., 2007b; Wilcox et al., 2008), which occurs when ‘‘the assignment of empirical meaning to an unobserved variable . . . is other than the meaning assigned to it by an individual a priori to…”
Incorporating Formative Measures into Covariance-Based Structural Equation Models (2011, background): “There seems to be broad consensus in the literature that constructs themselves are not inherently formative or reflective (see, for example, Baxter 2009; Howell et al. 2007; Wilcox et al. 2008).”
The impact of government financial support on the performance of new firms: the role of competitive advantage as an intermediate outcome (2014, methodology): “The use of formative constructs has not been without concerns, some examples being lack of internal validity and the potential for interpretational confounding based on the constructs selected for identification and estimation purposes (Hair et al. 2010; Wilcox, Howell, and Breivik 2008).”
Harmonization in CSR Reporting (2011, background): “Although formative scale construction becomes increasingly popular (cf. Diamantopoulos 2008; Wilcox et al. 2008), the theoretical and empirical aspects that should be considered when deciding between these two approaches consistently point at a reflective model in our case (cf.”
The relationship between satisfaction and loyalty: A mediator analysis (2014, unknown): “Third, the particular antecedents and outcomes in this model constitute a limitation to the generalization of the results to othermodels (Wilcox et al., 2008).”
Creativity and Control: A Paradox. Evidence from the Levers of Control Framework (2017, methodology): “We use an index that assumes ‘‘ that all betas of the observables are ﬁxed to 1 ’’ (Wilcox, Howell, and Breivik 2008, 1222).”
The MIMIC model and formative variables: problems and solutions (2013, methodology): “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).”
Structural Equation Modeling in Information Systems Research Using Partial Least Squares (2010, background): “Some researchers opt for the exclusive usage of reflective indicators for theory testing, since formative constructs seem to have epistemological, logical, and statistical problems (e.g., Wilcox et al. 2008).”
Modelling customer loyalty in financial services: A hybrid of formative and reflective constructs (2011, background): “reflective), but in many cases “backward oriented” and thus formative ( Wilcox et al. , 2008”