Does existing measurement theory support the use of composite and causal indicators in information systems research?

Authors:
Andrew M. Hardin;Jerry Cha-Jan Chang
Affiliations:
Department of Management, Entrepreneurship, and Technology, Lee Business School, University of Nevada, Las Vegas;Department of Management, Entrepreneurship, and Technology, Lee Business School, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Venue:
ACM SIGMIS Database
Year:
2013

Citing 7
Cited 0

Decision Support for Retirement Portfolio Management: Overcoming Myopic Loss Aversion via Technology Design

Management Science
Specifying formative constructs in information systems research

MIS Quarterly
Investigating two contradictory views of formative measurement in information systems research

MIS Quarterly
Measurement and meaning in information systems and organizational research: methodological and philosophical foundations

MIS Quarterly
Incorporating formative measures into covariance-based structural equation models

MIS Quarterly
Evaluating effect, composite, and causal indicators in structural equation models

MIS Quarterly
Revisiting bias due to construct misspecification: different results from considering coefficients in standardized form

MIS Quarterly

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Despite lingering concerns surrounding the use of composite and causal indicators, a significant number of information systems researchers continue to employ them in their work. The authors suggest that misunderstandings about the appropriateness of implementing composite and causal indicators can be traced to the absence of measurement theory supporting their use. Recommendations on how researchers might design studies that avoid the use of these respective indicators are also provided.