Reflective and formative metrics of relationship value: Response to Baxter's commentary essay

This article responds to some of the issues Baxter [Baxter R., Reflective and formative metrics of relationship value: a commentary essay. Journal of Business Research; 62: 2009.] raises in his recent commentary essay on the special issue of Journal of Business Research (61/12”) on formative indicators. This response shows that poor construct definitions underlie the apparent formative versus reflective controversy and that sound model specifications rest on sound conceptual definitions of the focal construct.     

Reflective and formative metrics of relationship value: A commentary essay

The Journal of Business Research special issue (61/12) covers controversy about formative versus reflective model specification. This essay comments on that special issue and illustrates specific points relating to the controversy by discussing recent studies of business-to-business relationship value, comparing their differing specifications, and noting that the variations of specification result from quite distinct conceptualizations. The essay makes the more substantive conclusion that the differences in conceptualization result from more than one underlying streams of research and that each stream is conceptually quite distinct and needs to follow its own direction for future research. The specific case of relationship value illustrates the broad necessity for researchers to consider in-depth how they conceptualize models. Other research areas have distinct research streams that lie behind different conceptualizations and specifications that researchers must nurture explicitly if useful ontology is to develop effectively.     

Proportional structural effects of formative indicators

Formative constructs must influence two or more distinct outcome variables for meaningful tests of the formative conceptualization. Because the construct mediates the effects of its indicators, the indicators must have effects on the outcomes that are proportional to their effects on the formative construct itself. This constraint has important implications for developing and testing formative models. This study demonstrates the existence of the constraint, shows that researchers must consider proportionality as a criterion for evaluating the formative conceptualization, provides examples of indicators having different effects and interpretations depending on the outcome variables used, discusses the selection of outcomes to provide rigorous rather than trivial tests of the formative conceptualization, and contends that the formative nature of constructs cannot be justified in isolation from the consideration of outcome variables. In addition, the study demonstrates the importance of considering how the scaling of the formative construct influences the significance of the effects in the model.