{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021178027796161483, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026472534745201853, 'mean_word_length': 5.461538461538462, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Clarifying the Use of Formative Measurement in the IS Discipline: The Case of Computer Self-Efficacy

The spirited nature of the Marakas et al. reply speaks volumes about the importance of continuing the debate on how best to measure computer self-efficacy (CSE), as well as on the proper application of formative measurement in the IS discipline. While we believe that formative measurement can be appropriately applied in very specific situations, we also continue to witness the misapplication of formative measurement in our discipline, including (in our opinion) the formative specification of CSE. We believe the potential exists (given the natural constraints of time) for researchers in any discipline to necessarily rely on oft-cited papers when drawing conclusions on how to properly employ formative measures. In preparing our original comment on Marakas et al. (2007), we reviewed more than three decades’ worth of work on formative measurement, and when conflicting opinions were discovered, looked to well-known psychological methods experts for clarification. Given the large quantity of methodological work that has spanned multiple disciplines across extended periods of time, we believe synthesizing this research—and applying it to the particular context of CSE in the information systems discipline—can help us better understand not only CSE, but also formative measurements in general. Such an understanding allows us to appropriately and systematically advance knowledge in our discipline.