Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 233-241 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Journal of Business Research |
| Volume | 66 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Early online date | 23 Aug 2012 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Feb 2013 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- conceptual models
- formative latent variables
- composite variables
- measurement
- theory development
- partial least squares
Cite this
}
Improper use of formative endogenous variables. / Cadogan, John W.; Lee, Nick.
In: Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66, No. 2, 02.2013, p. 233-241.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Improper use of formative endogenous variables
AU - Cadogan, John W.
AU - Lee, Nick
PY - 2013/2
Y1 - 2013/2
N2 - Researchers often develop and test conceptual models containing formative variables. In many cases, these formative variables are specified as being endogenous. This article provides a clarification of formative variable theory, distinguishing between the formative latent variable and the formative composite variable. When an endogenous latent variable relies on formative indicators for measurement, empirical studies can say nothing about the relationship between exogenous variables and the endogenous formative latent variable: conclusions can only be drawn regarding the exogenous variables' relationships with a composite variable. The authors also show the dangers associated with developing theory about antecedents to endogenous formative variables at the (aggregate) formative latent variable level. Modeling relationships with endogenous formative variables at the (disaggregate) indicator level informs richer theory development, and encourages more precise empirical testing. When antecedents' relationships with endogenous formative variables are modeled at the formative latent variable level rather than the formative indicator level, theory construction can verge on the superficial, and empirical findings can be ambiguous in substantive meaning.
AB - Researchers often develop and test conceptual models containing formative variables. In many cases, these formative variables are specified as being endogenous. This article provides a clarification of formative variable theory, distinguishing between the formative latent variable and the formative composite variable. When an endogenous latent variable relies on formative indicators for measurement, empirical studies can say nothing about the relationship between exogenous variables and the endogenous formative latent variable: conclusions can only be drawn regarding the exogenous variables' relationships with a composite variable. The authors also show the dangers associated with developing theory about antecedents to endogenous formative variables at the (aggregate) formative latent variable level. Modeling relationships with endogenous formative variables at the (disaggregate) indicator level informs richer theory development, and encourages more precise empirical testing. When antecedents' relationships with endogenous formative variables are modeled at the formative latent variable level rather than the formative indicator level, theory construction can verge on the superficial, and empirical findings can be ambiguous in substantive meaning.
KW - conceptual models
KW - formative latent variables
KW - composite variables
KW - measurement
KW - theory development
KW - partial least squares
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870573274&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296312002196?via%3Dihub
U2 - 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.006
DO - 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.006
M3 - Article
VL - 66
SP - 233
EP - 241
JO - Journal of Business Research
JF - Journal of Business Research
SN - 0148-2963
IS - 2
ER -