SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 2

Formative and Reflective Measurement in Structural Equation Modelling

YAPISAL EŞİTLİK MODELLEMESİ KAPSAMINDA FORMATİF VE REFLEKTİF ÖLÇÜM

Bilge AKSAY
Ünal AY
Pages
1–21
Publication Date
2016-12-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this study, decision criteria about the scales used to represent the constructs in structural equation modeling for the researchers and the consequences of misspecified scales are presented

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Besides the common use of complicated statistical techniques to analyze the hypotheses in management and organization studies, usually the type of relationship between the latent variable and their indicators are ignored.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Hypothetically, scale items reflecting the scales, in other words, reflective relationship between scale and scale items is accepted.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this study, decision criteria about the scales used to represent the constructs in structural equation modeling for the researchers and the consequences of misspecified scales are presented
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Formatif ölçekler · reflektif ölçekler · gizil değişken

Abstract

Besides the common use of complicated statistical techniques to analyze the hypotheses in management and organization studies, usually the type of relationship between the latent variable and their indicators are ignored. Hypothetically, scale items reflecting the scales, in other words, reflective relationship between scale and scale items is accepted. But the relationship between scale and scale items cannot be always assessed as reflective. When indicators comprise latent variable and present the causes rather than its’ effects, formative measurement should be applied. The scale, of which indicators comprising of the scale instead of repeating the same definition, is called as formative scale. This research discusses theoretical background of reflective and formative scales , latent variables used structural equation modelling. In this study, decision criteria about the scales used to represent the constructs in structural equation modeling for the researchers and the consequences of misspecified scales are presented

Özet

değerlendirme amacıyla ileri istatistiki teknikler kullanılmakla birlikte, gözlenen değer ve gizil değişkenler arasındaki ilişkinin yönü çoğu zaman göz ardı edilmektedir. Varsayımsal olarak gözlenen değerlerin, gizil değişkenin yansıması olduğu; bir başka anlatımla reflektif bir ilişkinin varlığı kabul edilmektedir. Ancak ölçek ve ölçek maddeleri arasındaki ilişki her zaman reflektif özellik taşımamaktadır. Ölçek ifadelerinin gizil değişkeni belirlediği ve gizil değişkenin etkilerini değil, nedenlerini gösterdiği durumlarda formatif ölçüm kullanılmalıdır. Bu inceleme, yönetim ve organizasyon alanında yapılan araştırmalardaki yapısal eşitlik modellemesi içinde gizil değişken ile reflektif ve formatif ölçüme ilişkin kuramsal altyapıyı tartışmaktadır. Çalışmada alanyazın üzerinden yapısal eşitlik modellemesi kapsamında kullanılan formatif ve reflektif ölçekler hakkında araştırmacılara bazı karar kriterleri sunulmakta ve yanlış ölçek seçiminin sonuçları hakkında bilgi verilmektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

AKSAY, B., AY, Ü. (2016). Formative and Reflective Measurement in Structural Equation Modelling. Çağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 2, 1–21. https://ajindex.com/articles/715215

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Some methods for respecifying measurement measurement. Journal of Marketing Research: 19(4): 453-460.
  2. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: Psychological Bulletin, 103(3): 411-423.
  3. Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). On the meaning of formative measurement and how it differs from reflective measurement: comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007). Psychological Methods, 12(2): 229-237.
  4. Baxter, R. (2009). Reflective and formative metrics of relationship value: A commentary essay. Journal of Business Research, 62(12): 1370-1377.
  5. Bollen. (2007). Interpretational confounding is due to misspecification, not to type of indicator: comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007). Psychological Methods, 12(2): 219-228.
  6. Bollen, K. A. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1): 605-634.
  7. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110(2): 203-219.
  8. Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Teresi, J., Marchi, M., & Velez, C. N. (1990). Problems in the measurement of latent variables in structural equations causal models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(2): 183-196.
  9. Damantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators. Journal of Marketing Research, 38: 269-277.
  10. Diamantopoulos, A. (2010). Reflective and formative metrics of relationship value: Response to Baxter's commentary essay. Journal of Business Research, 63(1): 91-93.
  11. Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61(12): 1203- 1218. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4): 263-282.
  12. Edwards, J. R. (2010). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2): 370-388.
  13. Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5(2): 155-174.
  14. Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4): 440-452. doi: 10.2307/3151718 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1987). A second generation of multivariate analysis: Classification of methods and impli