New article published in the journal *Human Resource Development Quarterly* co-authored with Josef Guggemos (University of Wuppertal).

Abstract: Quantitative empirical research on workplace learning regularly employs measurement instruments that operationalize theoretical constructs. However, in fields related to workplace learning, high levels of measurement model misspecifications—up to 62% of all cases—have been identified. In most cases, formative measurement models—where indicators cause the construct—are erroneously specified as reflective, where the construct causes the indicators. This can significantly bias estimates, distort structural relationships, and, consequently, compromise the validity of research findings. However, in workplace learning research, there is currently no evidence available regarding the extent of measurement model misspecification. To address this research need, we systematically reassess 325 unique measurement instruments derived from 92 studies identified in a previous qualitative meta-synthesis. Using two distinct coding strategies—conservative coding and majority coding—we evaluate the extent to which formative measurement models have been misspecified as reflective. Results indicate that between 34.8% and 50.2% of instruments are misspecified in this way, depending on the coding approach. Based on this, we provide guidelines to support researchers in selecting and evaluating measurement models. Our study enhances the methodological rigor of workplace learning research and contributes to the broader discourse on improving construct validity in basic and applied research contexts.

Guggemos, J., & Goller, M. (online first, 2026). Formative and Reflective Measurement Models in Workplace Learning Research: A Critical Review and Guidelines. Human Resource Development Quarterly, hrdq.70032. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.70032

The article is available for free download (Open Access).