Abstract

Purpose To clarify the nature of the error term in formative measurement models, as it had been misinterpreted in prior research. Design/methodology/approach The error term in formative measurement models is analytically contrasted with the measurement errors typically found in reflective measurement models. Findings It is demonstrated that, unlike in reflective measurement, the error term in formative models is not measurement error but rather a disturbance representing non‐modeled causes. It is also shown that, under certain circumstances, the inclusion of an error term is not necessary/appropriate. Research limitations/implications Focus is only on first‐order measurement models; higher‐order specifications are not considered. Originality/value The paper helps researchers in their initial specification of formative measurement models as well as their evaluation of the subsequent model estimates, leading to better specifications for formative constructs.

Keywords

Formative assessmentTerm (time)Computer scienceObservational errorOriginalityFocus (optics)EconometricsStatisticsMathematicsPsychology

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

Publication Info

Year
2006
Type
article
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
7-17
Citations
340
Access
Closed

External Links

Social Impact

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

340
OpenAlex

Cite This

Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2006). The error term in formative measurement models: interpretation and modeling implications. Journal of Modelling in Management , 1 (1) , 7-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465660610667775

Identifiers

DOI
10.1108/17465660610667775