Journal of Information Technology Services (한국IT서비스학회지)

Korea Society of IT Services (한국IT서비스학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Development of Formative Constructs and Measurements for Performance Evaluation of Information Systems

정보시스템 성과평가를 위한 형성적 구성변수(Constructs) 및 측정지표 개발

  • 김상훈 (광운대학교 경영정보학과) ;
  • 김창규 (광운대학교 정보화혁신연구실)
  • Received : 2012.10.25
  • Accepted : 2012.12.14
  • Published : 2012.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Traditionally in IS studies, the relationship between construct and its measurement items tends to be assumed to be reflective, meaning that the measurements are a reflection of the construct. In reality, however, the nature of the construct can be often formative, which means that its measurement items describe and define the construct rather than vice versa. The purpose of this study was to investigate theoretical and empirically-analysed differences between formative construct and reflective construct through comprehensive interdisciplinary literature review. And then on the basis of these differences, we intended to derive the rule of specifying whether the construct is formative or reflective and propose the methodology of testing the validity(content validity, construct validity, internal consistency and external construct) of formative construct and its measurements, differentiated from that in the case of reflective construct. Also, we suggested the concrete statistical testing methods such as VTT(Vanishing Tetrad Test), MIMIC(Multiple Indicators and Multiple Causes) test and multi-collinearity test. In order to examine the applicability of this methodology to developing the constructs for performance evaluation of IS(Information Systems), we tried to identify its attribute(formative or reflective) and test the validity for the construct arbitrarily chosen among them which had been derived in our previous IS performance evaluation study by using this methodology. The result of the examination was that the methodology proposed in this study was significantly valid and effective in the area of IS performance evaluation.

Keywords

References

  1. 김상훈, 최점기, 진동욱, 조승철, 박일규, 김창규, 박미선, 김민욱, 강석열, 전범종, "중소기업 정보화지원정책 성과평가체계 연구", 중소기업청과 중소기업정보화경영원, 서울, 2005.
  2. 송재욱, 정호원, "사이버보안 지수 개발 및 실증：금융권 대상으로", 한국IT서비스학회 추계학술대회, (2011), pp.508-512.
  3. Petter, S., D. Straub, and A. Rai, "Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research", MIS Quarterly, Vol.31, No.4(2007), pp.623-656.
  4. Kim, G., B. Shin, and V. Grover, "Investigating Two Contradictory Views of Formative Measurement in Information Systems Research", MIS Quarterly, Vol.34, No.2(2010), pp.345-365.
  5. Chin, W. W. and P. A. Todd, "On the use, Usefulness, and Ease of use of Structural Equation Modeling in MIS Research：A Note of Caution", MIS Quarterly, Vol.19, No.2(1995), pp.237-246. https://doi.org/10.2307/249690
  6. Cenfetelli, R. T. and G. Bassellier, "Interpretation of Formative Measurement in Information Systems Research", MIS Quarterly, Vol.33, No.4(2009), pp.689-707.
  7. Gefen, D., D. W. Straub, and M. C. Boudreau, "Structural Equation Modeling and Regression： Guidelines for Research Practice", Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol.4(2000).
  8. Jarvis, C. B., S. B. MacKenzie, and P. M. Podsakoff, "A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.30, No.2(2003), pp.199-218. https://doi.org/10.1086/376806
  9. MacCallum, R. C. and M. W. Browne, "The use of Causal Indicators in Covariance Structure Models：Some Practical Issues", Psychological Bulletin, Vol.114, No.3(1993), pp. 533-541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.533
  10. Bollen, K. and R. Lennox, "Conventional Wisdom on Measurement：A Structural Equation Perspective", Psychological Bulletin, Vol.110, No.2(1991), pp.305-314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305
  11. Bollen, K. A. and K. Ting, "Confirmatory Tetrad Analysis", Anonymous American Sociological Association, Washington, DC, 1993.
  12. Bollen, K. A. and K. Ting, "A Tetrad Test for Causal Indicators", Psychological Methods, Vol.5, No.1(2000), pp.3-22. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.5.1.3
  13. Bollen, K. A., Structural equations with latent variables, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1989.
  14. Bollen, K. A., "Overall Fit in Covariance Structure Models：Two Types of Sample Size Effects", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107, No.2(1990), pp.256-259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.256
  15. Bollen, K. A., "Interpretational Confounding Is Due to Misspecification, Not to Type of Indicator：Comment on Howll, Breivik, and Wilcox", Psychological Methods, Vol.12, No.2 (2007), pp.219-228. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.219
  16. Burt, R. S., "Interpretational Confounding of Unobserved Variables in Structural Equation Models", Sociological Methods and Research, Vol.5, No.1(1976), pp.3-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/004912417600500101
  17. Chin, W. W., "Commentary：Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling", MIS Quarterly, Vol.22, No.1(1998), pp.vii-xvi.
  18. Spearman, C., "General Intelligence, Objectively Determined and Measured", The American Journal of Psychology, Vol.15, No.2 (1904), pp.201-292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412107
  19. Diamantopoulos, A. and J. A. Siguaw, "Formative Versus Reflective Indicators in Organizational Measure Development：A Comparison and Empirical Illustration", British Journal of Management, Vol.17, No.4(2006), pp.263-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x
  20. Coltman, T., T. M. Devinney, D. F. Midgley, and S. Venaik, "Formative Versus Reflective Measurement Models：Two Applications of Formative Measurement", Journal of Business Research, Vol.61, No.12(2008), pp.1250-1262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.013
  21. Bagozzi, R. P., "Measurement and Meaning in Information Systems and Organizational Research：Methodological and Philosophical Foundations", MIS Quarterly, Vol.35, No.2 (2011), pp.261-292.
  22. Borsboom, D., G. J. Mellenbergh, and J. Heerden, "The theoretical status of latent variables", Psychol Rev, Vol.110, No.2(2003), pp.203-219. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.203
  23. Borsboom, D., G. J. Mellenbergh, and J. Heerden, "The concept of validity", Psychol Rev, Vol.111, No.4(2004), pp.1061-1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061
  24. Edwards, J. R. and R. P. Bagozzi, "On the Nature and Direction of Relationships between Constructs and Measures", Psychological Methods, Vol.5, No.2(2000), pp.155- 174. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.155
  25. Rossiter, J. R., "The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing", International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol.19, No.4(2002), pp.305-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(02)00097-6
  26. Joreskog, K. G. and A. S. Goldberger, "Estimation of a Model with Multiple Indicators and Multiple Causes of a Single Latent Variable", Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol.70, No.351(1975), pp. 631-639. https://doi.org/10.2307/2285946
  27. Cronbach, L. J., "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of test", Psychometrica, Vol.16, No.3(1951), pp.297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
  28. Nunnully, J. C. and I. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory 1978, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994.
  29. Churchill, Jr, G. A., "A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.16, No.1(1979), pp.64-73. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150876
  30. Diamantopoulos, A. and H. M. Winklehoffer, "Index construction with formative indicatiors： an alternative to scale development", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.38, No.2 (2001), pp.269-277. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.269.18845
  31. Hipp, J. R., D. J. Bauer, and K. A. Bollen, "Conducting Tetrad Tests of Model Fit and Contrasts of Tetrad-Nested Models：A New SAS Macro", Structural Equation Modeling, Vol.12, No.1(2005), pp.76-93. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1201_4
  32. Low, K. S. and C. Wong, "Multidimensional constructs in structural equation analysis： An illustration using the job perception and job satisfaction constructs", Journal of Management, Vol.25, No.2(1999), pp.143-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80007-5
  33. Hodge, R. W. and D. J. Treiman, "Social Participation and Social Status", American Sociological Review, Vol.33, No.5(1968), pp. 722-740. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092883
  34. Bentler, P. M. and D. G. Bonett., "Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures", Psychological Bulletin, Vol.88, No.3(1980), pp. 588-606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
  35. Barki, H., R. Titah, and C. Boffo, "Information System use-related Activity：An Expanded Behavioral Conceptualization of Individual-Level Information System use", Information Systems Research, Vol.18, No.2 (2007), pp.173-192. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0122
  36. Gable, G. G. and D. Sedera, "Formative and Reflective Measurement and Validation Mismatch in Survey Research：An Archival Analysis of Information Systems Success Constructs 1985-2007", In Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Conference on Information Systems, Association for Information Systems, Phoenix, Arizona, 2009.