Evaluating Effect, Composite, and Causal Indicators in Structural Equation Models

Although the literature on alternatives to effect indicators is growing, there has been little attention given to evaluating causal and composite (formative) indicators. This paper provides an overview of this topic by contrasting ways of assessing the validity of effect and causal indicators in structural equation models (SEMs). It also draws a distinction between composite (formative) indicators and causal indicators and argues that validity is most relevant to the latter. Sound validity assessment of indicators is dependent on having an adequate overall model fit and on the relative stability of the parameter estimates for the latent variable and indicators as they appear in different models. If the overall fit and stability of estimates are adequate, then a researcher can assess validity using the unstandardized and standardized validity coefficients and the unique validity variance estimate. With multiple causal indicators or with effect indicators influenced by multiple latent variables, collinearity diagnostics are useful. These results are illustrated with a number of correctly and incorrectly specified hypothetical models.

[1]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research , 2007, MIS Q..

[2]  H. Blalock.  Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research , 1966 .

[3]  A. Goldberger,et al.  Estimation of a Model with Multiple Indicators and Multiple Causes of a Single Latent Variable , 1975 .

[4]  D. R. Heise.  Employing Nominal Variables, Induced Variables, and Block Variables in Path Analyses , 1972 .

[5]  Adamantios Diamantopoulos,et al.  Advancing formative measurement models , 2008 .

[6]  K. Bollen.  Multiple indicators: Internal consistency or no necessary relationship? , 1984 .

[7]  Claes Fornell,et al.  A Comparative analysis of two structural equation models : LISREL and PLS applied to market data , 1981 .

[8]  R. Lennox,et al.  Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. , 1991 .

[9]  R. MacCallum,et al.  The use of causal indicators in covariance structure models: some practical issues. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[10]  J. Wilcox,et al.  Reconsidering formative measurement. , 2007, Psychological methods.

[11]  Kenneth A. Bollen,et al.  Two Rules of Identification for Structural Equation Models , 2009 .

[12]  K. Bollen.  Interpretational confounding is due to misspecification, not to type of indicator: comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007). , 2007, Psychological methods.

[13]  Cheryl Burke Jarvis,et al.  A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research , 2003 .

[14]  Kenneth A. Bollen,et al.  Representing general theoretical concepts in structural equation models: the role of composite variables , 2008, Environmental and Ecological Statistics.

[15]  R. Bagozzi.  On the meaning of formative measurement and how it differs from reflective measurement: comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007). , 2007, Psychological methods.

[16]  K. Bollen,et al.  A tetrad test for causal indicators. , 2000, Psychological methods.

[17]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Structural Equations with Latent Variables , 1989 .

[18]  Kenneth A. Bollen,et al.  Structural Equations with Latent Variables , 1989 .

[19]  G. I. Kustova,et al.  From the author , 2019, Automatic Documentation and Mathematical Linguistics.

[20]  Kenneth A. Bollen,et al.  Causal Indicator Models: Identification, Estimation, and Testing , 2009 .

[21]  Shuangzhe Liu,et al.  Regression diagnostics , 2020, Applied Quantitative Analysis for Real Estate.