, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 18-23
Date: 16 Jan 2013

Conceptual clarity in measurement—Constructs, composites, and causes: a commentary on Lee, Cadogan and Chamberlain

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

Abstract

In an insightful and important article, Lee et al. (2013, this issue) clearly point out the problems with so-called formative measurement. In particular, they suggest that the MIMIC model formulation, as currently conceptualized, does not provide a solution. Their central thesis is that, in a MIMIC model, the supposedly formatively measured latent variable is empirically a reflective latent variable depending entirely on the endogenous variables included. They then look at composite variables as a possible solution. This commentary seeks to reinforce their central thesis, providing additional evidence and support. I also attempt to clarify the distinction between two types of models discussed in the article as MIMIC models. I then examine the use of composite variables, focusing on potential information loss and issues concerning conceptual clarity. I conclude that composite variables should not be routinely employed in theory testing research, and their use must be clearly justified.