No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Psychosocial constructs can only be assessed indirectly, and measures are typically formed by a combination of indicators that are thought to relate to the construct. Reflective and formative measurement models offer different conceptualizations of the relation between the indicators and what is sometimes conceived of as a univariate latent variable supposed to correspond in some way to the construct. I argue that the empirical implications of reflective and formative models will often be violated by data since the causally relevant constituents will generally be multivariate, not univariate. These empirical implications can be formally tested but factor analysis is not adequate to do so. I argue that formative models misconstrue the relation between the constructed measures and the underlying reality by which causal processes operate, but that reflective models misconstrue the nature of the underlying reality itself by typically presuming that the constituents of it that are causally efficacious are unidimensional. I discuss the ensuing problems arising from these misconstruals. I propose a causal interpretation of associations between constructed measures and various outcomes that is applicable to both reflective and formative models and is applicable even if the usual assumptions of these models are violated. I put forward an outline for a new model of the process of measure construction and discuss the practical implications of these observations and proposals for the provision of definitions, the selection of items, item-by-item analyses, the construction of measures, and the interpretation of the associations of these measures with subsequent outcomes.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 61 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.