Deconstructing the construct: A network perspective on psychological phenomena
Section snippets
Reflective models
In reflective models, observed indicators (e.g., item or subtest scores) are modeled as a function of a common latent variable (i.e., unobserved) and item-specific error variance. Reflective models are commonly presented as ‘measurement models’ in modern test theory (Mellenbergh, 1994). Examples are the IRT models of Rasch, 1960, Birnbaum, 1968 and Samejima (1969), common factor models (Jöreskog, 1971, Lawley and Maxwell, 1963), latent class models (Lazarsfeld, 1959), and latent profile models (
Problems with the reflective and formative conceptualizations
The status and nature of reflective and formative measurement models have been the source of various discussions (Bagozzi, 2007, Bollen, 2007, Howell et al., 2007a, Howell et al., 2007b; see also a special issue of the Journal of Business Research, vol. 16, issue 12, 2008). These have centered on desirable properties of indicators in formative and reflective models (Bollen, 1984, Jarvis et al., 2003, Wilcox et al., 2008), the status of the error term in formative models (Coltman et al., 2008,
The network perspective: constructs as dynamical systems
We propose that the variables that are typically taken to be indicators of latent variables should be taken to be autonomous causal entities in a network of dynamical systems. Instead of positing a latent variable, one assumes a network of directly related causal entities as a result of which one avoids the three problems discussed above.
First, consider criteria for a major depressive episode (MDE; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). These criteria involve symptoms like “lack of sleep,”
Constructs and their interrelations
The ontological status of psychological constructs as well as the epistemic question of how to measure them has been the topic of considerable controversy in psychology. Borsboom, Mellenbergh, and Van Heerden (2004) have argued that, in order to be plausible candidates for measurement, constructs should in fact refer to structures in reality; structures that play a causal role in determining individual differences in test scores. Maraun and Peters (2005) have suggested that the entire idea of
Conclusion
In this paper, we have presented a network approach in which the constituents of psychological constructs are directly related in a nontrivial and non-spurious manner. The network approach is intuitively attractive and naturally accommodates what we know about the elusive nature of psychological constructs. It also offers an explanation of why our traditional psychometric approaches have met with so little success, that is, of why after all these years we still do not know whether typical
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by NWO innovational research grant no. 451-03-068. The authors wish to thank Conor Dolan and Jelte Wicherts for providing the NEO-PI-R data set.
References (56)
Reflective and formative metrics of relationship value: a commentary essay
Journal of Business Research
(2009)- et al.
Complex networks: structure and dynamics
Physics Reports
(2006) - et al.
Formative versus reflective measurement models: two applications of formative measurement
Journal of Business Research
(2008) - et al.
Advancing formative measurement models
Journal of Business Research
(2008) - et al.
Dual electroencephalogram markers of human sleep homeostasis: correlation between theta activity in waking and slow-wave activity in sleep
Neuroscience
(2000) - et al.
Proportional structural effects of formative indicators
Journal of Business Research
(2008) The two-process model of sleep regulation revisited
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine
(2004)Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV)
(1994)On the meaning of formative measurement and how it differs from reflective measurement: comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007)
Psychological Methods
(2007)Latent variable models and factor analysis
(1987)