The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Three Cs in measurement models: Causal indicators, composite indicators, and covariates.
Open accessAbstract
In the last 2 decades attention to causal (and formative) indicators has grown. Accompanying this growth has been the belief that one can classify indicators into 2 categories: effect (reflective) indicators and causal (formative) indicators. We argue that the dichotomous view is too simple. Instead, there are effect indicators and 3 types of variables on which a latent variable depends: causal indicators, composite (formative) indicators, and covariates (the "Three Cs"). Causal indicators have conceptual unity, and their effects on latent variables are structural. Covariates are not concept measures, but are variables to control to avoid bias in estimating the relations between measures and latent variables. Composite (formative) indicators form exact linear combinations of variables that need not share a concept. Their coefficients are weights rather than structural effects, and composites are a matter of convenience. The failure to distinguish the Three Cs has led to confusion and questions, such as, Are causal and formative indicators different names for the same indicator type? Should an equation with causal or formative indicators have an error term? Are the coefficients of causal indicators less stable than effect indicators? Distinguishing between causal and composite indicators and covariates goes a long way toward eliminating this confusion. We emphasize the key role that subject matter expertise plays in making these distinctions. We provide new guidelines for working with these variable types, including identification of models, scaling latent variables, parameter estimation, and validity assessment. A running empirical example on self-perceived health illustrates our major points.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference
Pearl, J. (2009) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803161 · Cited by 11,653
Cited by
Partial least squares structural equation modeling
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2017) · Handbook of Market Research · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-1 · Cited by 3,285
Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016) · International Marketing Review · doi:10.1108/imr-09-2014-0304 · Cited by 2,964
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2022) · Handbook of Market Research · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57413-4_15 · Cited by 1,483
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2021) · Handbook of Market Research · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-2 · Cited by 876
Coping flexibility and psychological adjustment to stressful life changes: A meta-analytic review.
Cheng, C., Lau, H.-P. B., & Chan, M.-P. S. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0037913 · Cited by 664
Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0033901 · Cited by 482
Psychometric Validation of the Revised Family Affluence Scale: a Latent Variable Approach
the FAS Development Study Group, Torsheim, T., Cavallo, F., Levin, K. A., Schnohr, C., Mazur, J., Niclasen, B., & Currie, C. (2016) · Child Indicators Research · doi:10.1007/s12187-015-9339-x · Cited by 472
The measure of socio-economic status in PISA: a review and some suggested improvements
Avvisati, F. (2020) · Large-scale Assessments in Education · doi:10.1186/s40536-020-00086-x · Cited by 386
Mair, C., Cunradi, C. B., & Todd, M. (2012) · Annals of Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2012.09.008 · Cited by 145
Measuring executive function in early childhood: A case for formative measurement.
Willoughby, M. T., The Family Life Project Investigators, & Blair, C. B. (2016) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000152 · Cited by 120
Cultural context matters: Testing the minority stress model among Chinese sexual minority men
Sun, S., Hoyt, W. T., Tarantino, N., Pachankis, J. E., Whiteley, L., Operario, D., & Brown, L. K. (2021) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/cou0000535 · Cited by 85
Paetsch, J., Franz, S., & Wolter, I. (2023) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2023.104318 · Cited by 59
Kolacz, J., Dale, L. P., Nix, E. J., Roath, O. K., Lewis, G. F., & Porges, S. W. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.577728 · Cited by 48
Aligning theory and methodology in mixed methods research: Before Design Theoretical Placement
Alavi, M., Archibald, M., McMaster, R., Lopez, V., & Cleary, M. (2018) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645579.2018.1435016 · Cited by 46
Development and validation of the Socioeconomic Status Composite Scale (SES-C)
Sacre, H., Haddad, C., Hajj, A., Zeenny, R. M., Akel, M., & Salameh, P. (2023) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-16531-9 · Cited by 41
Crossing the seven Cs of internal consistency: Assessing the reliability of formative instruments
Gruijters, S. L. K., Fleuren, B. P. I., & Peters, G. J. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/qar39 · Cited by 17
Sciffer, M. G., Perry, L. B., & McConney, A. (2022) · Large-scale Assessments in Education · doi:10.1186/s40536-022-00142-8 · Cited by 16
Valero-Amaro, V., Galera-Casquet, C., & Barroso-Méndez, M. J. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.797621 · Cited by 13
Aristodemou, M. E., Rommelse, N., & Kievit, R. (2024) · Collabra: Psychology · doi:10.1525/collabra.122517 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Bollen, K. A., & Bauldry, S.
- Venue
- Psychological Methods
- Published
- 2011-09
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 265-284
- ISSN
- 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1463
- OpenAlex
- W2023843461
- Cited by
- 532
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 30.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
