期刊文献+

形成性测量模型:结构方程模型的新视角 被引量:21

Formative Model:A New Perspective of Structural Equation Model
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 形成性测量模型(Formative Model,FM)是指标变异导致潜变量变异的模型,反映性测量模型(Reflective Model,RM)是潜变量变异导致指标变异的模型。FM在模型界定、识别和估计、信效度评价以及模型应用等方面均与RM存在极大的不同。模型界定错误会使参数估计发生偏差,影响统计结论的有效性,应当审慎考虑指标和潜变量之间的关系,选择恰当的测量模型。进一步揭示两者的区别和误用带来的偏差,完善FM的识别和估计、信效度评价方法、对变量含义的解释以及高阶FM的理论解释和模型估计是未来的研究方向。 Formative Model (FM) refers to the measurement model in which the variation of latent variable is caused by the index variation, while Reflective Model (RM) refers to the measurement model in which the index variation is caused by the variation of latent variable. There are distinctions between FM and RM in definition, identification, estimation, the evaluation of reliability and validity and application. Wrong model definition may cause the deviation of parameters estimation, so as to lower the efficiency of statistical result. Therefore prudent consideration should be taken to the relationship between index and latent variable in order to choose the appropriate measurement model. At last, the future research should focus on the clarification of the differences between FM and RM, the effect of misuse, the improvement of the identification and estimation, the reliability and validity evaluation, the explanation of the meaning of variables and the theoretical interpretation and model estimaton of high-level FM.
出处 《心理科学进展》 CSSCI CSCD 北大核心 2011年第2期293-300,共8页 Advances in Psychological Science
关键词 形成性测量模型(FM) 反映性测量模型(RM) 结构方程模型 Formative Model Reflective Model Structural Equation Model
  • 相关文献

参考文献45

  • 1邱林 郑雪.主观幸福感的结构及其与人格特质的关系.中国健康心理学杂志,2006,(4).
  • 2Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). On the meaning of formative measurement and how it differs from reflective measurement: comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007). Psychological Methods, 12, 229-237.
  • 3Baxter, R. (2009). Reflective and formative metrics of relationship value: a commentary essay. Journal of Business Research, 62, 1370-1377.
  • 4Blalock, H. M. (1964). Causal inferences in nonexperimental research. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
  • 5Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
  • 6Bollen, K. A., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 10, 305-314.
  • 7Bollen, K. A., & Ting, K. (2000). A tetrad test for causal indicators. Psychological Methods, 5, 3-22.
  • 8Bollen, K. A. (2007). Interpretational confounding is due to misspecification, not to type of indicator: comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007). Psychological Methods, 12, 219-228.
  • 9Bollen, K. A., & Davis, W. R. (2009). Causal indicator models: identification, estimation, and testing. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 498-522.
  • 10Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Heerden, J. V. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061-1071.

共引文献1

同被引文献582

引证文献21

二级引证文献282

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部