Literature DB >> 25530730

Interpretational Confounding or Confounded Interpretations of Causal Indicators?

Sierra A Bainter1, Kenneth A Bollen2.   

Abstract

In measurement theory causal indicators are controversial and little-understood. Methodological disagreement concerning causal indicators has centered on the question of whether causal indicators are inherently sensitive to interpretational confounding, which occurs when the empirical meaning of a latent construct departs from the meaning intended by a researcher. This article questions the validity of evidence used to claim that causal indicators are inherently susceptible to interpretational confounding. Further, a simulation study demonstrates that causal indicator coefficients are stable across correctly-specified models. Determining the suitability of causal indicators has implications for the way we conceptualize measurement and build and evaluate measurement models.

Entities:  

Keywords:  causal indicators; formative measurement; latent variables; measurement; structural equation modeling

Year:  2014        PMID: 25530730      PMCID: PMC4267575          DOI: 10.1080/15366367.2014.968503

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Measurement ( Mahwah N J)        ISSN: 1536-6359


  8 in total

1.  A tetrad test for causal indicators.

Authors:  K A Bollen; K F Ting
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2000-03

Review 2.  The concept of validity.

Authors:  Denny Borsboom; Gideon J Mellenbergh; Jaap van Heerden
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Interpretational confounding is due to misspecification, not to type of indicator: comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007).

Authors:  Kenneth A Bollen
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2007-06

4.  Reconsidering formative measurement.

Authors:  Roy D Howell; Einar Breivik; James B Wilcox
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2007-06

5.  The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions.

Authors:  Scott B MacKenzie; Philip M Podsakoff; Cheryl Burke Jarvis
Journal:  J Appl Psychol       Date:  2005-07

6.  On the meaning of formative measurement and how it differs from reflective measurement: comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007).

Authors:  Richard P Bagozzi
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2007-06

7.  Three Cs in measurement models: causal indicators, composite indicators, and covariates.

Authors:  Kenneth A Bollen; Shawn Bauldry
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2011-09

8.  The use of causal indicators in covariance structure models: some practical issues.

Authors:  R C MacCallum; M W Browne
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 17.737

  8 in total
  3 in total

1.  Notes on measurement theory for causal-formative indicators: A reply to Hardin.

Authors:  Kenneth A Bollen; Adamantios Diamantopoulos
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2017-09

2.  The Potential for Interpretational Confounding in Cognitive Diagnosis Models.

Authors:  Qi Helen Huang; Daniel M Bolt
Journal:  Appl Psychol Meas       Date:  2022-04-15

3.  How Should Alcohol Problems Be Conceptualized? Causal Indicators Within the Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index.

Authors:  Brooke J Arterberry; Ting-Huei Chen; Alvaro Vergés; Kenneth A Bollen; Matthew P Martens
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 2.651

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.