Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The fallacy of formative measurement
View graph of relations

The fallacy of formative measurement

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

The fallacy of formative measurement. / Edwards, J. R.

In: Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 14, No. 2, 04.2011, p. 370-388.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Edwards, JR 2011, 'The fallacy of formative measurement', Organizational Research Methods, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 370-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110378369

APA

Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 370-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110378369

Vancouver

Edwards JR. The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods. 2011 Apr;14(2):370-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110378369

Author

Edwards, J. R. / The fallacy of formative measurement. In: Organizational Research Methods. 2011 ; Vol. 14, No. 2. pp. 370-388.

Bibtex

@article{9293c0969e264ebc9f6e7115d69aeddc,
title = "The fallacy of formative measurement",
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. ",
keywords = "measurement models, reliability and validity, quantitative: structural equation modeling",
author = "Edwards, {J. R.}",
year = "2011",
month = apr,
doi = "10.1177/1094428110378369",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "370--388",
journal = "Organizational Research Methods",
issn = "1094-4281",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The fallacy of formative measurement

AU - Edwards, J. R.

PY - 2011/4

Y1 - 2011/4

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - measurement models

KW - reliability and validity

KW - quantitative: structural equation modeling

U2 - 10.1177/1094428110378369

DO - 10.1177/1094428110378369

M3 - Journal article

VL - 14

SP - 370

EP - 388

JO - Organizational Research Methods

JF - Organizational Research Methods

SN - 1094-4281

IS - 2

ER -