Journal of Marketing Analytics

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 51–59 | Cite as

Using vanishing tetrad test to examine multifaceted causal directionality

  • Luming Wang
  • Adam Finn
Original Article
First Online:
Revised:

Abstract

Marketing data are multifaceted. Measures of marketing constructs have multiple legitimate sources of variance such as firms, customers and brands. So the invoked causality between a marketing concept and its measures should account for covariance at more than one level. Depending on a marketing construct’s conceptual domain, different sources of variance are focal to the theoretical relationships being investigated, and the construct’s relationship with its indicators can be either formative or reflective for each source. The authors show the vanishing tetrad test can be used to determine whether marketing data are formative along their multiple facets (for example, consumers versus brands).

Keywords

multifacet data formative constructs reflective constructs vanishing tetrad test 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aaker, D.A. (1991) Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aaker, D.A. (1996) Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review 38 (3): 102–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blalock, H.M. (1964) Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bollen, K.A. (1990) Outlier screening and a distribution-free test for vanishing tetrads. Sociological Methods and Research 19 (1): 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bollen, K.A. and Bauldry, S. (2011) Three Cs in measurement models: Causal indicators, composite indicators, and covariates. Psychological Methods 16 (3): 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bollen, K.A. and Ting, K.F. (1993) Confirmatory tetrad analysis. Sociological Methodology 23: 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bollen, K.A. (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollen, K.A., Lennox, R. and Dahly, D.L. (2009) Practical application of the vanishing tetrad test for causal indicator measurement models: An example from health-related quality of life. Statistics in Medicine 28 (10): 1524–1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bollen, K.A. and Ting, K. (2000) A tetrad test for causal indicators. Psychological Methods 5 (1): 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G.J. and Van Heerden, J. (2003) The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review 110 (2): 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brennan, R. (2001) Generalizability Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P. and Roth, K.P. (2008) Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research 61 (12): 1203–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1996) Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology 7 (2): 131–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finn, A. and Kayande, U. (1997) Reliability assessment and optimization of marketing measurement. Journal of Marketing Research 34 (2): 262–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finn, A. and Wang, L. (2014) Formative vs. Reflective measures: Facets of variation. Journal of Business Research 67 (1): 2821–2826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fornell, C. and Bookstein, F.L. (1982) Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research 19 (4): 440–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hipp, J.R., Bauer, D.J. and Bollen, K.A. (2005) Conducting tetrad tests of model fit and contrasts of tetrad-nested models: A new SAS macro. Structural Equation Modeling 12 (1): 76–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hipp, J. and Bollen, K.A. (2003) Model fit in structural equation models with censored, ordinal, and dichotomous variables: Testing vanishing tetrads. Sociological Methodology 33 (1): 267–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003) A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2): 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keller, K.L. (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marcoulides, G.A. (1989) Measuring computer anxiety: The computer anxiety scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 49 (3): 733–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Netemeyer, R.G. et al (2004) Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of Business Research 57 (2): 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nunnally, J. (1978) Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  24. Peter, J.P. (1981) Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (2): 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Villarejo-Ramos, A.F. and Sanchez-Franco, M.J. (2005) The impact of marketing communication and price promotion on brand equity. Journal of Brand Management 12 (6): 431–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000) An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28 (2): 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001) Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research 52 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luming Wang
    • 1
  • Adam Finn
  1. 1.University of Manitoba, MarketingWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations