Problems with formative and higher-order reflective variables
Introduction
The invited commentaries by Rigdon (this issue), and Finn & Wang (this issue), on the paper, "Improper Use of Endogenous Formative Variables (IFV)," (Cadogan and Lee, this issue). are greatly appreciated. Both comments throw important light on significant problems in contemporary understanding of the formative model and in current measurement practices in business research. The current authors share with Rigdon and with Finn and Wang a desire to expand understanding of measurement theory, and to make a positive impact on the application of measurement by practicing business researchers.
Nevertheless, the commentaries contain a number of important points that require counter comment or elaboration. The goals of the present paper are threefold. First, to re-examine the original intentions behind IFV, and in so doing, place a variety of Rigdon's comments in context, demonstrating that he is in agreement with the current authors in many places. In particular, the current paper clarifies why one can never know how a formative latent variable varies — regardless of statistical identification issues. Second, building on Rigdon's comments, the current paper demonstrates that, for formative variables to have utility in theoretical models, the loadings of the formative indicators should be specified as part of the construct definition prior to any analysis. Third, while the current authors share a number of important views with Finn and Wang, the authors show that the idea of a higher-order reflective construct makes no conceptual sense, and that the latter's use impedes theory development efforts and knowledge accumulation.
Section snippets
Response to Rigdon
Rigdon's commentary on IFV provides some important points which help make the case that IFV presents even stronger. In fact, in essence, Rigdon agrees entirely with the key message underpinning IFV — that researchers should not model antecedents to formative variables at the construct/aggregate level. Instead, antecedents should be modeled at the individual formative item level. However, a number of aspects of Rigdon's commentary require clarification.
Response to Finn and Wang
The authors are also grateful for Finn and Wang's commentary on their work, since it raises a number of key issues for business researchers. In particular, the authors strongly support Finn and Wang's call for researchers to devote far more effort to construct conceptualization, and in turn to theorizing about the link between constructs and measures.
An area of particular interest, mentioned repeatedly in Finn and Wang's comment, concerns the idea of higher-order constructs. It is certainly
Conclusions
The authors are grateful to have the opportunity to provide a rejoinder to the comments Rigdon and Finn and Wang make on the IFV paper. Both commentaries provide key supports and suggested extensions to the core thesis underpinning IFV (that formative endogenous variables should not be predicted at the construct / aggregate level), and the current rejoinder uses these commentaries as points of departure into other critical areas of measurement theory, closely related to the original thesis. The
References (20)
Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences
Annual Review of Psychology
(2002)- et al.
Socio-economic status, permanent income, and fertility: A latent-variable approach. Population Studies
Journal of Demography
(2007) - et al.
Increasing socio-economic inequalities in life expectancy and QALYs in Sweden 1980–1997
Health Economics
(2005) - Cadogan, J. W., Lee, N. (this issue). Improper use of endogenous formative variables. Journal of Business...
The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences
(1978)Scale development: Theory and applications
(1991)- et al.
Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration
British Journal of Management
(2006) Appropriate audit support system use: The influence of auditor, audit team, and firm factors
The Accounting Review
(2009)The fallacy of formative measurement
Organizational Research Methods
(2011)- Finn, A., Wang, L., (this issue) Formative vs. reflective measures: facets of variation. Journal of Business...
Cited by (130)
Sustainability-related product satisfaction – Development and application of a multi-dimensional measurement instrument
2024, Journal of Cleaner ProductionIterative business model innovation: A conceptual process model and tools for incumbents
2023, Journal of Business ResearchThe Dunning-Kruger effect and entrepreneurial self-efficacy: How tenure and search distance jointly direct entrepreneurial self-efficacy
2023, Journal of Business ResearchThe enterpriseness of business families: Conceptualization, scale development and validation
2023, Journal of Family Business Strategy