Author
Abstract
Recently, a few studies empirically explored the stability of first-order formative measurement, and raised concerns with its estimation reliability. Interpretational confounding, the disparity in the nominal and empirical meaning of a formatively measured construct, is at the center stage of the concern. Our study examines the issue in the context of the higher-order abstraction, focusing on the formatively defined relationship between the second-order construct and its indicators (i.e., first-order latent variables). Although the second-order formative abstraction is a widely accepted practice in structural equation modeling, the estimation results have been given a blind faith with no attempt to evaluate their integrity. Our empirical test, therefore, constitutes an attempt to fill the void. This study observed moderations of the theoretical relationship between reflectively designed first-order constructs and formatively defined second-order constructs when there is a change of endogenous variables. For this, two different formatively defined second-order constructs (i.e., IT management capabilities and IT personnel expertise) are utilized for the empirical testing. The estimation reveals that, while there was a considerable moderation of weights between IT management capabilities and its first-order constructs, those between IT personnel expertise and its first-order constructs remained relatively stable. These results demonstrate that the formatively defined relationship between the first- and second-order constructs can be precarious depending on the choice of the dependent variables. The analysis, therefore, revealed a significant presence of interpretational confounding and a higher chance of Type 1 error in model estimation. This implies that it becomes difficult to retain the construct validity and external validity of a formatively defined second-order construct. Thus, researchers are encouraged to exercise caution in mobilizing the formatively defined second-order measurement.
Suggested Citation
Bongsik Shin & Gimun Kim, 2011.
"Investigating the reliability of second-order formative measurement in information systems research,"
European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 608-623, September.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:tjisxx:v:20:y:2011:i:5:p:608-623
DOI: 10.1057/ejis.2011.7
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:taf:tjisxx:v:20:y:2011:i:5:p:608-623. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tjis .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.