The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interpretation of Formative Measurement in Information Systems Research1
Abstract
Within the Information Systems literature, there has been an emerging interest in the use of formative measurement in structural equation modeling (SEM). This interest is exemplified by descriptions of the nature of formative measurement (e.g., Chin 1998a), and more recently the proper specification of formatively measured constructs (Petter et al. 2007) as well as application of such constructs (e.g., Barki et al. 2007). Formative measurement is a useful alternative to reflective measurement. However, there has been little guidance on interpreting the results when formative measures are employed. Our goal is to provide guidance relevant to the interpretation of formative measurement results through the examination of the following six issues: multicollinearity; the number of indicators specified for a formatively measured construct; the possible co-occurrence of negative and positive indicator weights; the absolute versus relative contributions made by a formative indicator; nomological network effects; and the possible effects of using partial least squares (PLS) versus covariance-based SEM techniques. We provide prescriptions for researchers to consider when interpreting the results of formative measures as well as an example to illustrate these prescriptions.
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
Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635
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
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x · Cited by 3,410
Extending the technology acceptance model: the influence of perceived user resources
Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chin, W. W. (2001) · ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems · doi:10.1145/506724.506730 · Cited by 1,099
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2005) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1050.0065 · Cited by 580
Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research1
Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148814 · Cited by 32
Cited by
Pls-Sem: indeed a silver bullet
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011) · Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202 · Cited by 21,631
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
An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6 · Cited by 8,088
Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis
Hair, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069 · Cited by 5,446
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001 · Cited by 5,310
Metadata
- Authors
- Cenfetelli, R. T., & Bassellier, G.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2009-12-01
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 689-708
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W3143898318
- Cited by
- 1,027
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 31.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.