Abstract
In this rejoinder, we provide a response to the three commentaries written by Diamantopoulos, Howell, and Rigdon (all this issue) on our paper The MIMIC Model and Formative Variables: Problems and Solutions (also this issue). We contrast the approach taken in the latter paper (where we focus on clarifying the assumptions required to reject the formative MIMIC model) by spending time discussing what assumptions would be necessary to accept the use of the formative MIMIC model as a viable approach. Importantly, we clarify the implications of entity realism and show how it is entirely logical that some theoretical constructs can be considered to have real existence independent of their indicators, and some cannot. We show how the formative model only logically holds when considering these ‘unreal’ entities. In doing so, we provide important counter-arguments for much of the criticisms made in Diamantopoulos’ commentary, and the distinction also helps clarify a number of issues in the commentaries of Howell and Rigdon (both of which in general agree with our original paper). We draw together these various threads to provide a set of conceptual tools researchers can use when thinking about the entities in their theoretical models.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Of course, we assume here that Diamantopoulos’ lack of clarity was unintentional.
While we are not experts in medical research, an example of such a theory might be that the number of cigarettes smoked is associated with probability of death before a certain age. However, it may also be the case that even such a theory could be extended with the inclusion of unobservable mediating processes/variables needing indirect measurement. Furthermore, the notion of cause is itself unobservable. Some authors would also argue even something as seemingly observable as a probability of death or number of cigarettes is fundamentally unobservable due to measurement error, but such a view would only strengthen our thesis, so it is not necessary to dwell on it here.
References
Bagozzi, R. P. (1984). A Prospectus for Theory Construction in Marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 11–29.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2011). Measurement and Meaning in Information Systems and Organizational Research: Methodological and Philosophical Foundations. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 261–292.
Blalock, H. M. (1975). The Confounding of Measured and Unmeasured Variables. Sociological Methods and Research, 3(4), 355–383.
Bollen, K. A. (2007). Interpretational Confounding is Due to Misspecification, Not Type of Indicator: Comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007). Psychological Methods, 12(2), 219–228.
Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the Mind: Conceptual Issues in Contemporary Psychometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The Theoretical Status of Latent Variables. Psychological Review, 110(2), 203–219.
Cadogan, J. W., & Lee, N. (2013). Improper Use of Endogenous Formative Variables. Journal of Business Research, 66, 233–241.
Diamantopoulos, A. (2006). The Error Term in Formative Measurement Models: Interpretation and Modeling Implications. Journal of Modelling in Management, 1(1), 7–17.
Diamantopoulos, A. (2013). MIMIC Models and Formative Measurement: Some Thoughts on Lee, Cadogan, and Chamberlain. AMS Review. This issue.
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Formative Indicators: Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1203–1218.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. (2006). Formative versus Reflective Indicators in Organizational Measure Development: A Comparison and Empirical Illustration. British Journal of Management, 17, 263–282.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 269–277.
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(2), 191–213.
Hardin, A. M., Chang, J. C.-J., Fuller, M. A., & Torkzadeh, G. (2011). Formative Measurement and Academic Research: In Search of Measurement Theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(2), 281–305.
Hayduk, L. A. (1996). LISREL: Issues, Debates and Strategies. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press.
Hayduk, L. A., & Littvay, L. (2012). Should Researchers Use Single Indicators, Best Indicators, or Multiple Indicators in Structural Equation Models? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 159.
Howell, R., (2013). Conceptual Clarity in Measurement: Constructs, Composites, and Causes: A Commentary On Lee, Cadogan And Chamberlain (2013). AMS Review. This issue.
MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. (1948). On a Distinction between Hypothetical Constructs and Intervening Variables. Psychological Review, 55, 95–107.
Molina-Castillo, F.-J., Calantone, R.J., Stanko, M.A., & Munuera-Aleman, J.-L. (2012). Product Quality as a Formative Index: Evaluating an Alternative Measurement Approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management.
Rigdon, E. E., (2013), Lee, Cadogan, and Chamberlain: An Excellent Point . . . But What about that Iceberg? AMS Review. This issue.
Rigdon, E. E., Preacher, K. J., Lee, N., Howell, R. D., Franke, G. R., & Borsboom, D. (2011). Avoiding Measurement Dogma: A Response to Rossiter. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12), 1589–1600.
Sanchez-Perez, M., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. A. (2004). Consumers Felt Commitment Towards Retailers: Index Development and Validation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(2), 141–159.
Sosa, E., & Tooley, M. (1993). Introduction. In E. Sosa & M. Tooley (Eds.), Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Treiblmaier, H., Bentler, P. M., & Mair, P. (2011). Formative Constructs Implemented via Common Factors. Structural Equation Modeling, 18(1), 1–17.
Uhrich, S., & Benkenstein, M. (2010). Sport Stadium Atmosphere: Formative and Reflective Indicators for Operationalizing the Construct. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 211–237.
Wilcox, J. B., Howell, R. D., & Breivik, E. (2008). Questions about Formative Measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1219–1228.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cadogan, J.W., Lee, N. & Chamberlain, L. Formative variables are unreal variables: why the formative MIMIC model is invalid. AMS Rev 3, 38–49 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-013-0038-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-013-0038-9