ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Investigating weight constraint methods for causal-formative indicator modeling.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond school gates: the role of motivation in music learning on elementary school students' daily music listening behaviors.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Causal-formative indicators are often used in social science research. To achieve identification in causal-formative indicator modeling, constraints need to be applied. A conventional method is to constrain the weight of a formative indicator to be 1. The selection of which indicator to have the fixed weight, however, may influence statistical inferences of the structural path coefficients from the causal-formative construct to outcomes. Another conventional method is to use equal weights (e.g., 1) and assumes that all indicators equally contribute to the latent construct, which can be a strong assumption. To address the limitations of the conventional methods, we proposed an alternative constraint method, in which the sum of the weights is constrained to be a constant. We analytically studied the relations and interpretations of structural path coefficients from the constraint methods, and the results showed that the proposed method yields better interpretations of path coefficients. Simulation studies were conducted to compare the performance of the weight constraint methods in causal-formative indicator modeling with one or two outcomes. Results showed that higher biases in the path coefficient estimates were observed from the conventional methods compared to the proposed method. The proposed method had ignorable bias and satisfactory coverage rates in the studied conditions. This study emphasizes the importance of using an appropriate weight constraint method in causal-formative indicator modeling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38504078What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.