IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v171y2008i1p41-63.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modelling method effects as individual causal effects

Author

Listed:
  • Steffi Pohl
  • Rolf Steyer
  • Katrin Kraus

Abstract

Summary. Method effects often occur when different methods are used for measuring the same construct. We present a new approach for modelling this kind of phenomenon, consisting of a definition of method effects and a first model, the method effect model, that can be used for data analysis. This model may be applied to multitrait–multimethod data or to longitudinal data where the same construct is measured with at least two methods at all occasions. In this new approach, the definition of the method effects is based on the theory of individual causal effects by Neyman and Rubin. Method effects are accordingly conceptualized as the individual effects of applying measurement method j instead of k. They are modelled as latent difference scores in structural equation models. A reference method needs to be chosen against which all other methods are compared. The model fit is invariant to the choice of the reference method. The model allows the estimation of the average of the individual method effects, their variance, their correlation with the traits (and other latent variables) and the correlation of different method effects among each other. Furthermore, since the definition of the method effects is in line with the theory of causality, the method effects may (under certain conditions) be interpreted as causal effects of the method. The method effect model is compared with traditional multitrait–multimethod models. An example illustrates the application of the model to longitudinal data analysing the effect of negatively (such as ‘feel bad’) as compared with positively formulated items (such as ‘feel good’) measuring mood states.

Suggested Citation

  • Steffi Pohl & Rolf Steyer & Katrin Kraus, 2008. "Modelling method effects as individual causal effects," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(1), pages 41-63, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:171:y:2008:i:1:p:41-63
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2007.00517.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2007.00517.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2007.00517.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Eid, 2000. "A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 65(2), pages 241-261, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tobias Koch & Martin Schultze & Jeremy Burrus & Richard D. Roberts & Michael Eid, 2015. "A Multilevel CFA-MTMM Model for Nested Structurally Different Methods," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 40(5), pages 477-510, October.
    2. René Algesheimer & Richard P. Bagozzi & Utpal M. Dholakia, 2018. "Key Informant Models for Measuring Group-level Variables in Small Groups," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 47(2), pages 277-313, March.
    3. Del Bono, Emilia & Kinsler, Josh & Pavan, Ronni, 2020. "Skill Formation and the Trouble with Child Non-Cognitive Skill Measures," IZA Discussion Papers 13713, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Christian Geiser & Michael Eid & Fridtjof Nussbeck & Delphine Courvoisier & David Cole, 2010. "Multitrait-multimethod change modelling," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 94(2), pages 185-201, June.
    5. Tobias Koch & Martin Schultze & Jana Holtmann & Christian Geiser & Michael Eid, 2017. "A Multimethod Latent State-Trait Model for Structurally Different And Interchangeable Methods," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(1), pages 17-47, March.
    6. Chester Chun Seng Kam, 2018. "Why Do We Still Have an Impoverished Understanding of the Item Wording Effect? An Empirical Examination," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 47(3), pages 574-597, August.
    7. Rolf Steyer & Erik Sengewald & Sonja Hahn, 2015. "Some Comments on Wu and Browne," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 608-610, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chester Chun Seng Kam, 2018. "Why Do We Still Have an Impoverished Understanding of the Item Wording Effect? An Empirical Examination," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 47(3), pages 574-597, August.
    2. Alwin Stegeman & Tam Lam, 2014. "Three-Mode Factor Analysis by Means of Candecomp/Parafac," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 426-443, July.
    3. Guido Alessandri & Michele Vecchione & Brent Donnellan & John Tisak, 2013. "An Application of the LC-LSTM Framework to the Self-esteem Instability Case," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 769-792, October.
    4. Johannes Bohn & Jana Holtmann & Maike Luhmann & Tobias Koch & Michael Eid, 2020. "Attachment to Parents and Well-Being After High School Graduation: A Study Using Self- and Parent Ratings," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(7), pages 2493-2525, October.
    5. Xijuan Zhang & Ramsha Noor & Victoria Savalei, 2016. "Examining the Effect of Reverse Worded Items on the Factor Structure of the Need for Cognition Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, June.
    6. Tobias Koch & Martin Schultze & Jeremy Burrus & Richard D. Roberts & Michael Eid, 2015. "A Multilevel CFA-MTMM Model for Nested Structurally Different Methods," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 40(5), pages 477-510, October.
    7. Jens Jirschitzka & Aileen Oeberst & Richard Göllner & Ulrike Cress, 2017. "Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1059-1092, November.
    8. Minjeong Jeon & Frank Rijmen & Sophia Rabe-Hesketh, 2018. "CFA Models with a General Factor and Multiple Sets of Secondary Factors," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(4), pages 785-808, December.
    9. Boakye, Kwabena G. & Natesan, Prathiba & Prybutok, Victor R., 2020. "A correlated uniqueness model of service quality measurement among users of cloud-based service platforms," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    10. Robert Neumann & Peter Graeff, 2010. "A Multitrait-Multimethod approach to pinpoint the validity of aggregated governance indicators," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 849-864, August.
    11. Dhekra Ben Amara & Hong Chen, 2021. "Evidence for the Mediating Effects of Eco-Innovation and the Impact of Driving Factors on Sustainable Business Growth of Agribusiness," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 22(3), pages 251-266, September.
    12. Christian Geiser & Michael Eid & Fridtjof Nussbeck & Delphine Courvoisier & David Cole, 2010. "Multitrait-multimethod change modelling," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 94(2), pages 185-201, June.
    13. Tobias Koch & Martin Schultze & Jana Holtmann & Christian Geiser & Michael Eid, 2017. "A Multimethod Latent State-Trait Model for Structurally Different And Interchangeable Methods," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(1), pages 17-47, March.
    14. Rolf Steyer & Erik Sengewald & Sonja Hahn, 2015. "Some Comments on Wu and Browne," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 608-610, September.
    15. Alexandru Cernat & Daniel L. Oberski, 2022. "Estimating stochastic survey response errors using the multitrait‐multierror model," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(1), pages 134-155, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:171:y:2008:i:1:p:41-63. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.