Is Formative Measurement Really Measurement? Reply to Bollen (2007) and Bagozzi (2007)

By Roy D. Howell, Einar Breivik, James B. Wilcox. 2007

102 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, History and Philosophy of Science, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a6ed17698814a17fe1326b98d7eaa63e0fea2c91

How researchers see this paper

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

In Education

1. Richard P. Bagozzi
2. Frederik Ahlemann
3. Detmar W. Straub Jr.
4. Stacie C. Petter
5. J. Edwards
6. Philip M. Podsakoff
7. Nils Urbach
8. Nathan P. Podsakoff

In History and Philosophy of Science

1. Richard P. Bagozzi
2. J. Edwards

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Richard P. Bagozzi
2. Arun Rai
3. Nils Urbach
4. J. Edwards
5. Osman M. Karatepe
6. Detmar W. Straub Jr.
7. Frederik Ahlemann
8. Nathan P. Podsakoff

Citations in the corpus

• The Fallacy of Formative Measurement (2011, methodology): “…are collected through selfreport, in which case it is reasonable to assume that the psychological state caused the scores reported by the respondent (Blalock, 1964; Borsboom et al., 2003, 2004; Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000; Howell et al., 2007a, 2007b; for an alternative position, see Bagozzi, 2007).”
• Construct Measurement and Validation Procedures in MIS and Behavioral Research: Integrating New and Existing Techniques (2011, background): “Several researchers (Howell et al. 2007b; Kim et al. 2010; Wilcox et al. 2008) have recently demonstrated that interpretational confounding can be a major problem in models with formative indicators, when the identification of the construct level error term is achieved through structural…”
• Structural Equation Modeling in Information Systems Research Using Partial Least Squares (2010, background): “12 Volume 11 Issue 2 Article 2 Consequently, there has been an ongoing discourse on the characteristics of both model types and especially on the limitations of formative indicators (Bagozzi 2007; Bollen 1984; Bollen 2007; Howell et al. 2007a; Howell et al. 2007b).”
• Measurement and Meaning in Information Systems and Organizational Research: Methodological and Philosophical Foundations (2011, background): “Howell et al. (2007b) seem to proceed from the ontology of reflective measurement and use the criteria and meaning therein to criticize formative measurement.”
• Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research (2007, background): “There is also the perception that formative constructs are needlessly complicated and offer little value to a theoretical model over reflective constructs (Howell et al. 2007).”