posted on 2015-06-05, 12:16authored byJohn Cadogan, Nick Lee, Laura Chamberlain
This paper presents a causal explanation of formative variables that unpacks and clarifies the generally accepted idea that formative indicators are ‘causes’ of the focal formative variable. In doing this, we explore the recent paper by Diamantopoulos and Temme (AMS Review, 3(3), 160-171, 2013) and show that the latter misunderstand the stance of Lee, Cadogan, and Chamberlain (AMS Review, 3(1), 3-17, 2013; see also Cadogan, Lee, and Chamberlain, AMS Review, 3(1), 38-49, 2013). By drawing on the multiple ways that one can interpret the idea of causality within the MIMIC model, we then demonstrate how the continued defense of the MIMIC model as a tool to validate formative indicators and to identify formative variables in structural models is misguided. We also present unambiguous recommendations on how formative variables can be modelled in lieu of the formative MIMIC model.
History
School
Business and Economics
Department
Business
Published in
AMS Review
Volume
4
Issue
1-2
Pages
32 - 43
Citation
CADOGAN, J.W., LEE, N.J. and CHAMBERLAIN, L., 2014. Material and efficient cause interpretations of the formative model: resolving misunderstandings and clarifying conceptual language. AMS Review, 4 (1-2), pp. 32 - 43
This work is made available according to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. Full details of this licence are available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Publication date
2014
Notes
The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13162-013-0058-5