The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Incorporating Formative Measures into Covariance-Based Structural Equation Models1
Abstract
Formatively measured constructs have been increasingly used in information systems research. With few exceptions, however, extant studies have been relying on the partial least squares (PLS) approach to specify and estimate structural models involving constructs measured with formative indicators. This paper highlights the benefits of employing covariance structure analysis (CSA) when investigating such models and illustrates its application with the LISREL program. The aim is to provide practicing IS researchers with an understanding of key issues and potential problems associated with formatively measured constructs within a covariance-based modeling framework and encourage them to consider using CSA in their future research endeavors.
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
Practical issues in structural modeling
BENTLER, P. M., & CHOU, C.-P. (1987) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124187016001004 · Cited by 5,804
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 · cited 2×
“…either be content-valid measures of η making the latter “a single latent construct with a mixture of formative and reflective indicators” (MacKenzie et al. 2005, p. 727) or, alternatively, they could be observed outcomes (consequences) of η (for an example, see Diamantopoulos and Siguaw 2006).”
BackgroundSelf-citationAn empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001 · Cited by 2,906
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2005) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1050.0065 · Cited by 580
The 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
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
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
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/23044045 · Cited by 3,165
Lowry, P. B., & Gaskin, J. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication · doi:10.1109/tpc.2014.2312452 · Cited by 1,901
Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., & Schuberth, F. (2020) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2019.05.003 · Cited by 1,788
Gefen (2011) · doi:10.2307/23044042 · Cited by 1,596
Metadata
- Authors
- Diamantopoulos, A.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2011-06-01
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 335-358
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W1548865438
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 30.35
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Incorporating Formative Measures into Covariance-Based Structural Equation Models1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/23044046
- The paper
- Diamantopoulos, A. (2011). Incorporating Formative Measures into Covariance-Based Structural Equation Models1. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/23044046
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.
