지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2014.11
- 수록면
- 33 - 47 (15page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
There is a common mistake in psychological and behavioral journals leading to serious questions concerning the research validity in structured equation model(SEM). Petter et al.(2007), published in the MIS Quarterly, pointed out the problem of measurement model misspecification among existing IS studies. Especially, it was argued that formative constructs have been mistaken for reflective constructs and they proposed guidelines to specify formative constructs and to safeguard their construct validity. Although we agree that Petter et al.(2007)`s work is beneficial to researchers who take advantage of SEM for empirical research, it also raises a fundamental question on whether IS research based on formative measurement should be encouraged. This question is especially relevant as reflective measurement has been available as a more credible alternative and formative measures can be converted to reflective ones. Our work aims to offer a corrective direction over Petter et al.(2007) suggestion in undertaking research based on SEM. For this, we first compare reflective measurement and formative measurement in terms of the relationship between constructs and measures. Then, we offer our views on adequate approaches that should contribute in forming the convergent(rather than divergent) flow of research efforts. Given the frequent usage of SEM by IS scholars, we brought up an imperative methodology issue that needs a closer look by both authors and reviewers.
목차
Abstract
Ⅰ. Introduction
Ⅱ. Differences Between Formative Measurement And Reflective Measurement
Ⅲ. Guidelines For Researchers And Reviewers
Ⅳ. Conclusion
References
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0