2009
DOI: 10.2753/mtp1069-6679170306
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Model Misspecification: Contrasting Formative and Reflective Indicators for a Model of E-Service Quality

Abstract: This paper discusses the managerial and theoretical implications of model misspecifi cation-specifi cally, formative versus refl ective construct conceptualization, measurement, and modeling of e-service quality. Service quality has a long history of using refl ective indicators in its conceptualization. Recently, researchers have started to question the traditional conceptualization by noting that service quality may be better represented by formative rather than refl ective indicators. We undertook a study o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
38
0
3

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
38
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Two facets of store-related cognitions, namely store atmosphere and service quality perceptions, were included as single-indicant measures in this model because of their formative nature (Collier and Bienstock 2009). The items for these formative measures were first averaged to form composite scores of the facets.…”
Section: Measure Assessmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two facets of store-related cognitions, namely store atmosphere and service quality perceptions, were included as single-indicant measures in this model because of their formative nature (Collier and Bienstock 2009). The items for these formative measures were first averaged to form composite scores of the facets.…”
Section: Measure Assessmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…). For example, Collier and Bienstock (, pp. 271–272) stated:
Numerous studies have conceptualized service quality as an attitude that is based on a reflective judgment.
…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(1) tangibles, (2) reliability, (3) assurance, (4) empathy, and (5) responsiveness (e.g., Cenfetelli and Bassellier 2009;Collier and Bienstock 2009;Parasuraman et al 1988). Some customers might favor the communication facets (e.g., empathy and responsiveness) when they evaluate service quality, while others might favor the trust facets (e.g., assurance and reliability) in their evaluation.…”
Section: Unobserved Heterogeneity In the Measurement Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%