مطالعات مدیریت ورزشی

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

اعضای هیات تحریریه

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پیوندهای مفید

پرسش‌های متداول

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

داوران

هزینه های دریافتی

فرایند پذیرش مقالات

راهنمای نگارش مقاله

ملاحظات نظری و تجربی طراحی مدل اندازه‌گیری ترکیبی و انعکاسی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 آنالیز

2 دانشگاه گیلان

چکیده

در پژوهش های مدیریت، یک روند رو به رشد به سمت اندازه‌گیری ترکیبی وجود دارد که در آن شاخص های اندازه‌گیری به عنوان علت سازه ها در نظر گرفته می‌شود. اندازه‌گیری ترکیبی می‌تواند جایگزین مناسبی برای اندازه‌گیری انعکاسی، که در آن سازه ها به عنوان علت شاخص های اندازه‌گیری در نظر گرفته می‌شود، باشد. استفاده نادرست از مدل های اندازه‌گیری ترکیبی و انعکاسی، روایی محتوای سازه را تضعیف می‌کند، روابط ساختاری بین سازه ها را مخدوش می‌کند و در نهایت سودمندی نظریه ها را برای حوزه عمل کاهش می‌دهد. بنابراین هدف از این تحقیق شامل: الف) بحث در مورد تمایز بین مدل های اندازه‌گیری ترکیبی و انعکاسی، ب) توسعه مجموعه ای از معیارهای مفهومی برای تعیین اینکه یک سازه باید به عنوان شاخص های ترکیبی یا انعکاسی مدل سازی شود، ج) توصیه هایی برای ساخت سازه های ترکیبی براساس ریه کورس و سازه های انعکاسی براساس پارادایم چرچیل، می‌باشد. این مقاله براساس ادبیات تحقیق چارچوبی را ارائه می‌دهد تا محققان مدل های اندازه‌گیری ترکیبی و انعکاسی را به درستی طراحی و آزمون نمایند، هرچند که برخی سازه ها ممکن است ذاتا ترکیبی یا انعکاسی باشند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Theoretical and Experimental Considerations of Designing a Formative and Reflective Measurement Model

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ghasem Mehrabi 1
  • mehrali hematinejhad 2

1 AAAA

2 Guilan University

چکیده [English]

In management research, there is a growing trend towards Formative measurement which measurement indices are considered the cause of Construct. Formative measurement can be a good alternative to reflective measurement, where Construct are considered to be the cause of measurement indices. Incorrect use of Formative and reflective measurement models Weakening the content validity of the Construct, Weakening the structural relationships between Constructs, and Finally, reduces the usefulness of theories in field of practice. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to: A) discuss the distinction between Formative and reflective measurement models, B) developing a set of conceptual criteria to determine whether a structure should be modeled as a composite or reflective index, C) Recommendations for the construction of Formative Construct based on C-OAR-SE method and reflective Construct based on the Churchill paradigm. This paper, based on the research literature to provid a framework for researchers to design and test Formative and reflective measurement models correctly.However, some structures may be inherently Formative or reflective.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • structural equation modeling
  • Formative measurement
  • reflective measurement
  • C-OAR-SE method
  • Churchill paradigm
مراجع
  1. Allison DB Brown AW, George BJ, Kaiser Ka. (2016). A tragedy of errors. Nature, 530(27), 27-9.
  2. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
  3. Bagozzi, Richard P. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: A Comment, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 375–381.
  4. Bagozzi, Richard P. and Todd F. Heatherton. (1994). A General Approach to Representing Multifaceted Personality Constructs: Application to State Self-Esteem, Structural Equation Modeling, 1 (1), 35–67.
  5. Bedeian, A. G., Day, D. V., & Kelloway, E. K. (1997). Correcting for measurement error attenuation in structural equation models: Some important reminders. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 785-799.
  6. Blalock, H. M. (1964). Causal inferences in nonexperimental research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
  7. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: John Wiley.
  8. Bollen, K. A. (2007). Interpretational confounding is due to misspecification, not to type of indicator: Comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox Psychological Methods, 12, 219–228.
  9. Bollen, K. A., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305-314.
  10. Bollen, K. A., & Ting, K. (2000). A tetrad test for causal indicators. Psychological Methods, 5, 3-22.
  11. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110, 203-219.
  12. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061-1071.
  13. Campbell, D. T. (1960). Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct, trait, or discriminant validity. American Psychologist, 15, 546-553.
  14. Churchill GA. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73.
  15. Coltman, T, Devinney, TM, Midgley, DF & Veniak, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement, Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250-1262.
  16. Crosby, Lawrence A., Kenneth R. Evans, and Deborah Cowles. (1990). Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (July), 68–81.
  17. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theories and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  18. Diamantopoulos A. (2005). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing: a comment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(1), 1-9.
  19. Diamantopoulos A. Siguaw JA. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263-282.
  20. Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 269-277.
  21. Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1203-1218.
  22. Eboli, L. Forciniti, C. & Mazzulla G., (2018). Formative and reflective measurement models for analysing transit service quality. Public Transp, 10, 107–127.
  23. Edwards J R. (2013). The Fallacy of Formative Measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 370-388
  24. Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155-174.
  25. Finn A. Kayande U. (2005). How fine is C-OAR-SE? A generalizability theory perspective on Rossiter’s procedure. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(1), 11-21.
  26. Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
  27. Fornell, Claes and Fred L. Bookstein (1982), Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory, Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440–452.
  28. Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  29. Franke, G. R., Preacher, K. J., & Rigdon, E. E. (2008). Proportional structural effects of formative indicators. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1229-1237.
  30. Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd Ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  31. Heise, D. R. (1972). Employing nominal variables, induced variables, and block variables in path analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 1, 147-173.
  32. Heise, D. R., & Bohrnstedt, G. W. (1970). Validity, invalidity, and reliability. In E. F. Borgatta, & G.W. Bohrnstedt (Eds.), Sociological methodology (pp. 104-129). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  33. Howell, R. D., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. B. (2007). Is formative measurement really measurement? Reply to Bollen (2007) and Bagozzi (2007). Psychological Methods, 12, 238–245.
  34. Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit Indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90-98.
  35. Jarvis CB. Mackenzie SB. Podsakoff PM. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 199-218.
  36. John, George. (1984). an Empirical Investigation of Some Antecedents of Opportunism in a Marketing Channel, Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 278–289.
  37. Law, K. S., & Wong, C. (1999). SMultidimensional constructs in structural equation analysis: An illustration using the job perception and job satisfaction constructs. Journal of Management, 25, 143-160.
  38. MacCallum, R., & Browne, M. W. (1993). The use of causal indicators in covariance structure models: Some practical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 533-541.
  39. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 710-730.
  40. MacKenzie, Scott B., Richard J. Lutz, and George E. (1986). Belch, The Role of Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations, Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 130–143.
  41. Mehrabi, gh., & Razaghi, ME. (2019), A Criticism on Statistical Methods and Tests of Sport Management Research, Paper presented at the 4th Iranian National Conference on Sport Science and Physical Education, Association for Development and Promotion of Fundamental Sciences and Technologies, Tehran. (Persian)
  42. Mehrabi, gh., Sajjadi, S N., Razaghi, ME. (2018). Errors of Statistical Methods and Exams in Sport Management Research, Paper presented at the 3th Iranian Society of Sport Management Conference, Payame Noor University, Tehran. (Persian)
  43. Messick, S. (1981). Constructs and their vicissitudes in educational and psychological measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 575-588.
  44. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  45. Podsakoff, N. P., Shen, W., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2006). The role of formative measurement models in strategic management research: Review, critique and implications for future research. In D. J. Ketchen, & D. D. Bergh (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management, 3, 197-252.
  46. Reilly, Michael D. (1982). Working Wives and Convenience Consumption, Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 407–418.
  47. Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 305-335.
  48. Rossiter, J.R. (2011). Measurement for the Social Sciences. New York: Springer, e-downloads available from Springer.com.
  49. Shook CL. Ketchen DJ Jr. Hult TMG. Kacmar MK. (2004). An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 25(4), 397- 404.
  50. Smith, K. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Great minds in management: The process of theory development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

 

مطالعات مدیریت ورزشی
دوره 14، شماره 76
بهمن و اسفند 1401
صفحه 43-74
فایل ها
سابقه مقاله
  • تاریخ دریافت: 29 اسفند 1398
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 12 خرداد 1399
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 17 خرداد 1399
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار: 01 اسفند 1401
اشتراک گذاری
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار