Text
Conceptual clarity in measurement?Constructs, composites, and causes: a commentary on Lee, Cadogan and Chamberlain
In an insightful and important article, Lee et al. (2013, this issue) clearly point out the problems with so-called formative measurement. In particular, they suggest that the MIMIC model formulation, as currently conceptualized, does not provide a solution. Their central thesis is that, in a MIMIC model, the supposedly formatively measured latent variable is empirically a reflective latent variable depending entirely on the endogenous variables included. They then look at composite variables as a possible solution. This commentary seeks to reinforce their central thesis, providing additional evidence and support. I also attempt to clarify the distinction between two types of models discussed in the article as MIMIC models. I then examine the use of composite variables, focusing on potential information loss and issues concerning conceptual clarity. I conclude that composite variables should not be routinely employed in theory testing research, and their use must be clearly justified..Printed Journal
Ketersediaan
| Call Number | Location | Available |
|---|---|---|
| AMSR0301 | PSB lt.dasar - Pascasarjana | 1 |
| Penerbit | : The Academy of Marketing Science |
|---|---|
| Edisi | - |
| Subjek | formative measurement reflective measurement composite variables |
| ISBN/ISSN | 1869814X |
| Klasifikasi | - |
| Deskripsi Fisik | - |
| Info Detail Spesifik | - |
| Other Version/Related | Tidak tersedia versi lain |
| Lampiran Berkas | Tidak Ada Data |