CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 495Psychometric Methodologies and TestingBusiness Strategies and Management ResearchAccounting and Organizational Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 96 of the 97 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Fallacy of Formative Measurement

Edwards, Jeffrey R.·2011·Organizational Research Methods
DOI 10.1177/1094428110378369
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In management research, there is a growing trend toward formative measurement, in which measures are treated as causes of constructs. Formative measurement can be contrasted with reflective measurement, in which constructs are specified as causes of measures. Although recent work seems to suggest that formative measurement is a viable alternative to reflective measurement, the emerging enthusiasm for formative measurement is based on conceptions of constructs, measures, and causality that are difficult to defend. This article critically compares reflective and formative measurement on the basis of dimensionality, internal consistency, identification, measurement error, construct validity, and causality. This comparison leads to the conclusion that the presumed viability of formative measurement is a fallacy, and the objectives of formative measurement can be achieved using alternative models with reflective measures.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1094428110378369

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 97 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Borsboom, D., 2008, Measurement, 6, 25
  2. DeVellis, R.F., 1991, Scale development: Theories and applications
  3. Fayers, P.M., 1997, Quality of Life Research, 6, 139
  4. 10.1177/002224378201900406 · DOI
  5. Law, K.S., 1999, Journal of Management, 25, 143
  6. Lord, F.M., 1968, Statistical theories of mental test scores
  7. Nunnally, J.C., 1978, Psychometric theory
  8. Nunnally, J.C., 1994, Psychometric theory
  9. 10.2307/258554 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–495 of 495

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Edwards, J. R.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Edwards, Jeffrey R.
ORCID
Edwards, Jeffrey R.
Venue
Organizational Research Methods
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-08-11
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
370-388
ISSN
  • 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7425
DOI
10.1177/1094428110378369
OpenAlex
W2107306814
Cited by
495
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 22
FWCI
35.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Organizational Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Management Research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Accounting and Organizational Management
Keywords
formative measurement, reflective measurement, construct measurement, causality, construct validity, measurement error, identification, internal consistency, dimensionality, structural equation modeling, management research

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