Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Making measurement errors and interpreting path coefficients: a practical perspective

  • 35 Accesses


The purpose of this analysis is to provide a practical approach to the assessment of reliability. In particular, we examine the impact of random measurement error upon the magnitude and interpretation of standardized regression coefficients (or path coefficients) and the specification of regression models. With the proper research the relationship between measured and true values can be inferred by using path coefficients. Such inferences allow assessments of the specification of statistical models. Several examples illustrate how researchers can be misled without knowledge of the impact of measurement error.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Achen, C. H. (1975). Mass political attitudes and the survey response,American Political Science Review 69, 1218–1231.

  2. Bollen, K. A. (1989).Structural Equation Models with Latent Variables, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

  3. Carmines, E. G. and R. A. Zeller (1979).Reliability and Validity Assessment, Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

  4. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the interval structure of tests,Psychometrika 16, 297–334.

  5. Joreskog, K. G. and D. Sorbom (1988).LISREL: A Guide to the Program and Applications, Chicago: SPSS, Inc.

  6. Lord, F. M. and M. R. Novick (1968).Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores, Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

  7. Marcus, G. B. (1983). Dynamic modeling of cohort change: the case of political partisanship,American Journal of Political Science 27, 717–739.

  8. Morgenstern, Oskar (1963).On the Accuracy of Economic Observations, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

  9. Niemi, R. G., E. G. Carmines, and J. P. McIver (1986). The impact of scale length on reliability and validity: a clarification of some misconceptions,Quality and Quantity 20, 371–376.

  10. Novick, M. R. and G. Lewis (1967). Coefficient alpha and the reliability of composite measurements,Psychometrika 32, 1–13.

  11. Nunnally, J. C. (1978).Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.

  12. Rainey, H. G. (1983). Public agencies and private firms: incentive structures, goals, and individual roles,Administration and Society 15, 207–242.

  13. Romzek, B. S. (1985). The effects of public service recognition, job security, and staff on organizational involvement,Public Administration Review 45, 283–291.

  14. Rosenberg, M. (1965).Society and the Adolescent Self Image, Princeton University Press.

  15. Siegel, P. M. and R. W. Hodge (1968). A causal approach to the study of measurement error, chapter in H. M. Blalock Jr. and A. B. Blalock (eds.),Methodology in Social Research, 28–59.

  16. Tyler, T. R. and R. Weber (1982). Support for the death penalty: instrumental response to crime, or symbolic attitude?,Law and Society Review 17, 21–45.

  17. Wiley, D. E. and J. A. Wiley (1970). The estimation of measurement error in panel data,American Sociological Review 35, 112–117.

  18. Wonnacott, R. J. and T. H. Wonnacott (1979).Econometrics, New York: Wiley.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Francis, W.L., Carmines, E.G. Making measurement errors and interpreting path coefficients: a practical perspective. Qual Quant 27, 19–30 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01097008

Download citation


  • Regression Model
  • Measurement Error
  • Statistical Model
  • Regression Coefficient
  • Practical Approach