The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
In defense of causal-formative indicators: A minority report.
Open accessAbstract
Causal-formative indicators directly affect their corresponding latent variable. They run counter to the predominant view that indicators depend on latent variables and are thus often controversial. If present, such indicators have serious implications for factor analysis, reliability theory, item response theory, structural equation models, and most measurement approaches that are based on reflective or effect indicators. Psychological Methods has published a number of influential articles on causal and formative indicators as well as launching the first major backlash against them. This article examines 7 common criticisms of these indicators distilled from the literature: (a) A construct measured with "formative" indicators does not exist independently of its indicators; (b) Such indicators are causes rather than measures; (c) They imply multiple dimensions to a construct and this is a liability; (d) They are assumed to be error-free, which is unrealistic; (e) They are inherently subject to interpretational confounding; (f) They fail proportionality constraints; and (g) Their coefficients should be set in advance and not estimated. We summarize each of these criticisms and point out the flaws in the logic and evidence marshaled in their support. The most common problems are not distinguishing between what we call causal-formative and composite-formative indicators, tautological fallacies, and highlighting issues that are common to all indicators, but presenting them as special problems of causal-formative indicators. We conclude that measurement theory needs (a) to incorporate these types of indicators, and (b) to better understand their similarities to and differences from traditional indicators. (PsycINFO Database Record
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
Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective.
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305 · Cited by 3,618
Self-citationDiamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x · Cited by 3,410
Self-citationStructural equations modeling: Fit Indices, sample size, and advanced topics
Iacobucci, D. (2010) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003 · Cited by 2,263 · cited 4×
“In doing so, they often praise the allegedly superior virtues of reflective (effect) indicators, which, for some authors, even constitute “the only defensible measurement model” (Iacobucci, 2010, p. 94, emphasis added).”
InfluentialThe Fallacy of Formative Measurement
Edwards, J. R. (2011) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428110378369 · Cited by 495
The dangers of poor construct conceptualization
MacKenzie, S. B. (2003) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1177/0092070303031003011 · Cited by 426
Cited by
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021) · Classroom Companion: Business · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7 · Cited by 10,343
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
Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice
Watkins, M. W. (2018) · Journal of Black Psychology · doi:10.1177/0095798418771807 · Cited by 2,218
Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM research
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Mitchell, R., & Gudergan, S. P. (2020) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585192.2017.1416655 · Cited by 1,943
Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., & Schuberth, F. (2020) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2019.05.003 · Cited by 1,788
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
Improving PLS-SEM Use for Business Marketing Research
Guenther, P., Guenther, M., Ringle, C. M., Zaefarian, G., & Cartwright, S. (2023) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.03.010 · Cited by 800
Developmental cognitive neuroscience using latent change score models: A tutorial and applications
Kievit, R. A., Brandmaier, A. M., Ziegler, G., van Harmelen, A.-L., de Mooij, S. M. M., Moutoussis, M., Goodyer, I. M., Bullmore, E., Jones, P. B., Fonagy, P., et al. (2018) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2017.11.007 · Cited by 516
The role of domain expertise in trusting and following explainable AI decision support systems
Bayer, S., Gimpel, H., & Markgraf, M. (2022) · Journal of Decision Systems · doi:10.1080/12460125.2021.1958505 · Cited by 103
The Usability Construct: A Dead End?
Tractinsky, N. (2018) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/07370024.2017.1298038 · Cited by 87
Iron deficiency in infancy and neurocognitive and educational outcomes in young adulthood.
East, P., Doom, J. R., Blanco, E., Burrows, R., Lozoff, B., & Gahagan, S. (2021) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0001030 · Cited by 59
Metadata
- Authors
- Bollen, K. A., & Diamantopoulos, A.
- Venue
- Psychological Methods
- Published
- 2017-09
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 581-596
- ISSN
- 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1463
- OpenAlex
- W2409800606
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 21.20
- 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.
