Abstract
Causal-formative indicators are often used in social science research. To achieve identification in causal-formative indicator modeling, constraints need to be applied. A conventional method is to constrain the weight of a formative indicator to be 1. The selection of which indicator to have the fixed weight, however, may influence statistical inferences of the structural path coefficients from the causal-formative construct to outcomes. Another conventional method is to use equal weights (e.g., 1) and assumes that all indicators equally contribute to the latent construct, which can be a strong assumption. To address the limitations of the conventional methods, we proposed an alternative constraint method, in which the sum of the weights is constrained to be a constant. We analytically studied the relations and interpretations of structural path coefficients from the constraint methods, and the results showed that the proposed method yields better interpretations of path coefficients. Simulation studies were conducted to compare the performance of the weight constraint methods in causal-formative indicator modeling with one or two outcomes. Results showed that higher biases in the path coefficient estimates were observed from the conventional methods compared to the proposed method. The proposed method had ignorable bias and satisfactory coverage rates in the studied conditions. This study emphasizes the importance of using an appropriate weight constraint method in causal-formative indicator modeling.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables (vol. 210). John Wiley & Sons.
Bollen, K. A., & Bauldry, S. (2011). Three Cs in measurement models: Causal indicators, composite indicators, and covariates. Psychological Methods, 16, 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024448
Bollen, K. A., & Davis, W. R. (2009). Causal indicator models: Identification, estimation, and testing. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 498–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008253
Bollen, K. A., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2017). In defense of causal-formative indicators: A minority report. Psychological Methods, 22, 581–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000056
Bollen, K. A., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305
Bollen, K. A., & Ting, K. F. (2000). A tetrad test for causal indicators. Psychological Methods, 5, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.5.1.3
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Diamantopoulos, A. (2006). The error term in formative measurement models: Interpretation and modeling implications. Journal of Modelling in Management, 1, 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465660610667775
Diamantopoulos, A. (2011). Incorporating formative measures into covariance-based structural equation models. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 35, 335–358. https://doi.org/10.2307/23044046
Diamantopoulos, A., & Temme, D. (2013). Mimic models, formative indicators and the joys of research. AMS Review, 3, 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-013-0050-0
Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.155
Franke, G. R., Preacher, K. J., & Rigdon, E. E. (2008). Proportional structural effects of formative indicators. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1229–1237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.011
Grace, J. B., & Bollen, K. A. (2008). Representing general theoretical concepts in structural equation models: The role of composite variables. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 15, 191–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-007-0047-7
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (pls-sem). Sage publications.
Howell, R. D., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. B. (2007). Reconsidering formative measurement. Psychological Methods, 12, 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.205
Joreskog, K. G., & Goldberger, A. S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 631–639. https://doi.org/10.2307/2285946
Maxwell, S. E. (2000). Sample size and multiple regression analysis. Psychological Methods, 5, 434–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.5.4.434
Mueller, C. W., & Parcel, T. L. (1981). Measures of socioeconomic status: Alternatives and recommendations. Child Development, 52, 13–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129211
Mustillo, S., Li, M., & Ferraro, K. F. (2021). Evaluating the cumulative impact of childhood misfortune: A structural equation modeling approach. Sociological Methods and Research, 50, 1073–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124119875957
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a monte carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(4), 599–620. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8
Rhemtulla, M., van Bork, R., & Borsboom, D. (2020). Worse than measurement error: Consequences of inappropriate latent variable measurement models. Psychological Methods, 25, 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000220
Schuberth, F. (2021). The henseler-ogasawara specification of composites in structural equation modeling: A tutorial. Psychological Methods, 28, 843–859. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000432
Spearman, C. (1904). “General Intelligence” objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412107
Willoughby, M. T., & Blair, C. B. (2016). Measuring executive function in early childhood: A case for formative measurement. Psychological Assessment, 28, 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000152
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Ruoxuan Li and Lijuan Wang are grateful for the support from IES grant R305D210023 during the study.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Li, R., Wang, L. Investigating weight constraint methods for causal-formative indicator modeling. Behav Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02365-9
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02365-9