University of Nevada.
Psychol Methods. 2017 Sep;22(3):597-604. doi: 10.1037/met0000115.
In this issue, Bollen and Diamantopoulos (2017) defend causal-formative indicators against several common criticisms leveled by scholars who oppose their use. In doing so, the authors make several convincing assertions: Constructs exist independently from their measures; theory determines whether indicators cause or measure latent variables; and reflective and causal-formative indicators are both subject to interpretational confounding. However, despite being a well-reasoned, comprehensive defense of causal-formative indicators, no single article can address all of the issues associated with this debate. Thus, Bollen and Diamantopoulos leave a few fundamental issues unresolved. For example, how can researchers establish the reliability of indicators that may include measurement error? Moreover, how should researchers interpret disturbance terms that capture sources of influence related to both the empirical definition of the latent variable and to the theoretical definition of the construct? Relatedly, how should researchers reconcile the requirement for a census of causal-formative indicators with the knowledge that indicators are likely missing from the empirically estimated latent variable? This commentary develops 6 related research questions to draw attention to these fundamental issues, and to call for future research that can lead to the development of theory to guide the use of causal-formative indicators. (PsycINFO Database Record
在本期中，Bollen 和 Diamantopoulos（2017）为因果构成指标辩护，反对了一些反对使用该指标的学者提出的常见批评。在这样做的过程中，作者提出了几个令人信服的主张：构念独立于其测量而存在；理论决定指标是导致还是衡量潜在变量；以及反射性和因果构成指标都受到解释性混淆的影响。然而，尽管这是一篇对因果构成指标进行了充分论证和全面辩护的文章，但它并不能解决与这场争论相关的所有问题。因此，Bollen 和 Diamantopoulos 并未解决一些基本问题。例如，研究人员如何能够确定可能包含测量误差的指标的可靠性？此外，研究人员应该如何解释那些捕捉到与潜在变量的经验定义和构念的理论定义都相关的影响源的干扰项？相关地，研究人员应该如何调和对因果构成指标的普查要求与这样一种认识，即指标可能在经验上估计的潜在变量中缺失？本评论提出了 6 个相关的研究问题，以引起对这些基本问题的关注，并呼吁进行未来的研究，以制定理论来指导因果构成指标的使用。
