Specifying formative constructs in information systems research

Stacie Petter, Detmar Straub, Arun Rai

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1517 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

While researchers go to great lengths to justify and prove theoretical links between constructs, the relationship between measurement items and constructs is often ignored. By default, the relationship between construct and item is assumed to be reflective, meaning that the measurement items are a reflection of the construct. Many times, though, the nature of the construct is not reflective, but rather formative. Formative constructs occur when the items describe and define the construct rather than vice versa. In this research, we examine whether formative constructs are indeed being mistaken for reflective constructs by information systems researchers. By examining complete volumes of MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research over the last 3 years, we discovered that a significant number of articles have indeed misspecified formative constructs. For scientific results to be valid, we argue that researchers must properly specify formative constructs. This paper discusses the implications of different patterns of common misspecifications of formative constructs on both Type land Type II errors. To avoid these errors, the paper provides a roadmap to researchers to properly specify formative constructs. We also discuss how to address formative constructs within a research model after they are specified.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)623-656
Number of pages34
JournalMIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems
Volume31
Issue number4
StatePublished - Dec 1 2007

Fingerprint

systems research
information system
Information systems
Management information systems
Information systems research

Keywords

  • Composite constructs
  • Formative constructs
  • Latent constructs
  • Measurement models
  • Methodology
  • Reflective constructs
  • Statistical conclusion validity
  • Type I and Type II errors

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Management Information Systems
  • Information Systems
  • Computer Science Applications
  • Information Systems and Management

Cite this

Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. / Petter, Stacie; Straub, Detmar; Rai, Arun.

In: MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, Vol. 31, No. 4, 01.12.2007, p. 623-656.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Petter, Stacie ; Straub, Detmar ; Rai, Arun. / Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. In: MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems. 2007 ; Vol. 31, No. 4. pp. 623-656.
@article{e292bf757d2548cc8a56e6fd565844c5,
title = "Specifying formative constructs in information systems research",
abstract = "While researchers go to great lengths to justify and prove theoretical links between constructs, the relationship between measurement items and constructs is often ignored. By default, the relationship between construct and item is assumed to be reflective, meaning that the measurement items are a reflection of the construct. Many times, though, the nature of the construct is not reflective, but rather formative. Formative constructs occur when the items describe and define the construct rather than vice versa. In this research, we examine whether formative constructs are indeed being mistaken for reflective constructs by information systems researchers. By examining complete volumes of MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research over the last 3 years, we discovered that a significant number of articles have indeed misspecified formative constructs. For scientific results to be valid, we argue that researchers must properly specify formative constructs. This paper discusses the implications of different patterns of common misspecifications of formative constructs on both Type land Type II errors. To avoid these errors, the paper provides a roadmap to researchers to properly specify formative constructs. We also discuss how to address formative constructs within a research model after they are specified.",
keywords = "Composite constructs, Formative constructs, Latent constructs, Measurement models, Methodology, Reflective constructs, Statistical conclusion validity, Type I and Type II errors",
author = "Stacie Petter and Detmar Straub and Arun Rai",
year = "2007",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "623--656",
journal = "MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems",
issn = "0276-7783",
publisher = "Management Information Systems Research Center",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Specifying formative constructs in information systems research

AU - Petter, Stacie

AU - Straub, Detmar

AU - Rai, Arun

PY - 2007/12/1

Y1 - 2007/12/1

N2 - While researchers go to great lengths to justify and prove theoretical links between constructs, the relationship between measurement items and constructs is often ignored. By default, the relationship between construct and item is assumed to be reflective, meaning that the measurement items are a reflection of the construct. Many times, though, the nature of the construct is not reflective, but rather formative. Formative constructs occur when the items describe and define the construct rather than vice versa. In this research, we examine whether formative constructs are indeed being mistaken for reflective constructs by information systems researchers. By examining complete volumes of MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research over the last 3 years, we discovered that a significant number of articles have indeed misspecified formative constructs. For scientific results to be valid, we argue that researchers must properly specify formative constructs. This paper discusses the implications of different patterns of common misspecifications of formative constructs on both Type land Type II errors. To avoid these errors, the paper provides a roadmap to researchers to properly specify formative constructs. We also discuss how to address formative constructs within a research model after they are specified.

AB - While researchers go to great lengths to justify and prove theoretical links between constructs, the relationship between measurement items and constructs is often ignored. By default, the relationship between construct and item is assumed to be reflective, meaning that the measurement items are a reflection of the construct. Many times, though, the nature of the construct is not reflective, but rather formative. Formative constructs occur when the items describe and define the construct rather than vice versa. In this research, we examine whether formative constructs are indeed being mistaken for reflective constructs by information systems researchers. By examining complete volumes of MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research over the last 3 years, we discovered that a significant number of articles have indeed misspecified formative constructs. For scientific results to be valid, we argue that researchers must properly specify formative constructs. This paper discusses the implications of different patterns of common misspecifications of formative constructs on both Type land Type II errors. To avoid these errors, the paper provides a roadmap to researchers to properly specify formative constructs. We also discuss how to address formative constructs within a research model after they are specified.

KW - Composite constructs

KW - Formative constructs

KW - Latent constructs

KW - Measurement models

KW - Methodology

KW - Reflective constructs

KW - Statistical conclusion validity

KW - Type I and Type II errors

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=38549116762&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=38549116762&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:38549116762

VL - 31

SP - 623

EP - 656

JO - MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems

JF - MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems

SN - 0276-7783

IS - 4

ER -