RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Rejoinder to issue 12(3): Formative versus reflective measurement of executive function tasks
Response to commentaries and another perspective
Willoughby, M. (2014). Rejoinder to issue 12(3): Formative versus reflective measurement of executive function tasks: Response to commentaries and another perspective. Measurement, 12(4), 173. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2014.981074
The focus article (Willoughby et al., 2014*) (1) introduced the distinction between formative and reflective measurement and (2) proposed that performance-based executive function tasks may be better conceptualized from the perspective of formative rather than reflective measurement. This proposal stands in sharp contrast to conventional measurement wisdom, in which confirmatory factor models are routinely used to represent individual differences in executive function ability. Here, I respond to the many thoughtful commentaries on my proposal. In addition, I draw on a philosophical distinction between formative and reflective latent variables that was made by Borsboom, Mellenbergh, and van Heerden (230044) to further challenge the current tendency to view executive function tasks from the perspective of reflective measurement.
*Michael Willoughby, Steven J. Holochwost, Zane E. Blanton & Clancy B. Blair (2014) Executive Functions: Formative Versus Reflective Measurement, Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 12:3, 69-95, DOI: 10.1080/15366367.2014.929453
