Three Conceptual Impediments to Developing Scale Theory for Formative Scales

IF 2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL
K. Markus
{"title":"Three Conceptual Impediments to Developing Scale Theory for Formative Scales","authors":"K. Markus","doi":"10.1027/1614-2241/a000154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bollen and colleagues have advocated the use of formative scales despite the fact that formative scales lack an adequate underlying theory to guide development or validation such as that which underlies reflective scales. Three conceptual impediments impede the development of such theory: the redefinition of measurement restricted to the context of model fitting, the inscrutable notion of conceptual unity, and a systematic conflation of item scores with attributes. Setting aside these impediments opens the door to progress in developing the needed theory to support formative scale use. A broader perspective facilitates consideration of standard scale development concerns as applied to formative scales including scale development, item analysis, reliability, and item bias. While formative scales require a different pattern of emphasis, all five of the traditional sources of validity evidence apply to formative scales. Responsible use of formative scales requires greater attention to developing the requisite underlying theory.","PeriodicalId":18476,"journal":{"name":"Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for The Behavioral and Social Sciences","volume":"14 1","pages":"156–163"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for The Behavioral and Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000154","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Bollen and colleagues have advocated the use of formative scales despite the fact that formative scales lack an adequate underlying theory to guide development or validation such as that which underlies reflective scales. Three conceptual impediments impede the development of such theory: the redefinition of measurement restricted to the context of model fitting, the inscrutable notion of conceptual unity, and a systematic conflation of item scores with attributes. Setting aside these impediments opens the door to progress in developing the needed theory to support formative scale use. A broader perspective facilitates consideration of standard scale development concerns as applied to formative scales including scale development, item analysis, reliability, and item bias. While formative scales require a different pattern of emphasis, all five of the traditional sources of validity evidence apply to formative scales. Responsible use of formative scales requires greater attention to developing the requisite underlying theory.
形成性量表发展尺度理论的三个概念性障碍
Bollen及其同事提倡使用形成量表,尽管事实上形成量表缺乏足够的基础理论来指导发展或验证,比如反思量表的基础理论。三个概念障碍阻碍了这一理论的发展:仅在模型拟合的背景下重新定义测量,概念统一的概念难以理解,以及项目得分与属性的系统融合。抛开这些障碍,打开了发展所需理论以支持形成性量表使用的进步之门。更广泛的视角有助于考虑标准量表发展问题,这些问题适用于形成量表,包括量表发展、项目分析、可靠性和项目偏差。虽然形成量表需要不同的强调模式,但所有五种传统的有效性证据来源都适用于形成量表。负责任地使用形成性量表需要更多地关注发展必要的基础理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.50%
发文量
16
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信