Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAguirre‐Urreta, Miguel I.
dc.contributor.authorRönkkö, Mikko
dc.contributor.authorMarakas, George M.
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-14T12:42:14Z
dc.date.available2024-02-14T12:42:14Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.identifier.citationAguirre‐Urreta, M. I., Rönkkö, M., & Marakas, G. M. (2024). Reconsidering the implications of formative versus reflective measurement model misspecification. <i>Information Systems Journal</i>, <i>34</i>(2), 533-584. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12487" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12487</a>
dc.identifier.otherCONVID_197588210
dc.identifier.urihttps://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/93395
dc.description.abstractThe literature on formative modelling (“formative measurement”) in the information systems discipline claims that measurement model misspecification, where a reflective model is used instead of a more appropriate formative model, is widespread. In this research, we argue that this cannot be true because models misspecified in this way would fail the measurement validation procedures used with reflective models and thus would not be publishable. To support this argument, we present two extensive simulation studies. The simulation results show that in most cases where data originates from a formative model, estimating a reflective model would not produce results that satisfy the commonly used measurement validation guidelines. Based on these results, we conclude that widespread publication of models where the direction of measurement is misspecified is unlikely in IS and other disciplines that use similar measurement validation guidelines. Moreover, building on recent discussions on modelling endogenous formatively specified latent variables, we demonstrate that the effects of misspecification are minor in models that do pass the model quality check. Our results address important issues in the literature on the consequences of measurement model misspecification and provide a starting point for new advances in this area.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell
dc.relation.ispartofseriesInformation Systems Journal
dc.rightsIn Copyright
dc.subject.otherit indexes
dc.subject.otherformative
dc.subject.othermeasurement model specification
dc.subject.othermeasurement validation rules
dc.subject.otherreflective
dc.titleReconsidering the implications of formative versus reflective measurement model misspecification
dc.typearticle
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi:jyu-202402141875
dc.contributor.laitosKauppakorkeakoulufi
dc.contributor.laitosSchool of Business and Economicsen
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.description.reviewstatuspeerReviewed
dc.format.pagerange533-584
dc.relation.issn1350-1917
dc.relation.numberinseries2
dc.relation.volume34
dc.type.versionacceptedVersion
dc.rights.copyright© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
dc.rights.accesslevelopenAccessfi
dc.subject.ysometodologia
dc.subject.ysomallit (mallintaminen)
dc.subject.ysomittaus
dc.subject.ysomallintaminen
dc.subject.ysotietojärjestelmätiede
dc.subject.ysovalidointi
dc.format.contentfulltext
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7509
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p510
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p4794
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p3533
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p38880
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p20652
dc.rights.urlhttp://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en
dc.relation.doi10.1111/isj.12487
dc.type.okmA1


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

In Copyright
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as In Copyright