Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16
Bill Harley, Dries Faems, Andrew Corbett (2014)
A Few Bad Apples or the Tip of an Iceberg? Academic Misconduct in PublishingJournal of Management Studies, 51
A. Satorra, P. Bentler (2008)
Ensuring Positiveness of the Scaled Difference Chi-square Test StatisticPsychometrika, 75
(1974)
Commencement Address to California Institute of Technology
(2007)
Trends in theory building and theory testing: A fivedecade study of the Academy of
Li-tze Hu, P. Bentler (1999)
Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternativesStructural Equation Modeling, 6
L. Williams, R. Vandenberg, J. Edwards (2009)
12 Structural Equation Modeling in Management Research: A Guide for Improved AnalysisThe Academy of Management Annals, 3
(2010)
Ensuring positivenss of the scaled difference chi-square test
Herman Aguinis, Erika Harden (2009)
Cautionary note on conveniently dismissing χ, 5
(2007)
Testing! Testing! One, two, three – testing the theory in structural models
L. Tucker, C. Lewis (1973)
A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysisPsychometrika, 38
Frank Bosco, Herman Aguinis, James Field, C. Pierce, D. Dalton (2016)
HARKing's Threat to Organizational Research: Evidence From Primary and Meta‐Analytic SourcesPersonnel Psychology, 69
Albert Maydeu-Olivares, Dexin Shi, Y. Rosseel (2018)
Assessing Fit in Structural Equation Models: A Monte-Carlo Evaluation of RMSEA Versus SRMR Confidence Intervals and Tests of Close FitStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25
(1981)
LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood
Feinian Chen, P. Curran, K. Bollen, James Kirby, Pamela Paxton (2008)
An Empirical Evaluation of the Use of Fixed Cutoff Points in RMSEA Test Statistic in Structural Equation ModelsSociological Methods & Research, 36
Academy of Management Annals, 3
Ernest O’Boyle, G. Banks, Erik Gonzalez‐Mulé (2017)
The Chrysalis EffectJournal of Management, 43
L. Hayduk (2014)
Seeing Perfectly Fitting Factor Models That Are Causally MisspecifiedEducational and Psychological Measurement, 74
T. Asparouhov, B. Muthén, M. Muthén
Please Scroll down for Article Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling, Integrating Cfa and Efa: Application to Students' Evaluations of University Teaching
L. Williams, Ernest O’Boyle (2011)
The Myth of Global Fit Indices and Alternatives for Assessing Latent Variable RelationsOrganizational Research Methods, 14
S. Sterba, R. Maccallum (2010)
Variability in Parameter Estimates and Model Fit Across Repeated Allocations of Items to ParcelsMultivariate Behavioral Research, 45
M. Credé, P. Harms, Sarah Niehorster, Andrea Gaye-Valentine (2012)
An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits.Journal of personality and social psychology, 102 4
(2002)
EQS for Windows User's Guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software
P. Bentler (1990)
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.Psychological bulletin, 107 2
H. Marsh, O. Lüdtke, B. Nagengast, A. Morin, Matthias Davier (2013)
Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: two wrongs do not make a right--camouflaging misspecification with item parcels in CFA models.Psychological methods, 18 3
L. John, G. Loewenstein, D. Prelec (2012)
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth TellingPsychological Science, 23
J. Antonakis, S. Bendahan, Philippe Jacquart, R. Lalive (2010)
On making causal claims: A review and recommendationsLeadership Quarterly, 21
Re: Kurtosis, residuals, fit indices
Andrew Gelman, Eric Loken (2019)
The garden of forking paths : Why multiple comparisons can be a problem , even when there is no “ fishing expedition ” or “ p-hacking ” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time ∗
R. Landis, J. Cortina (2014)
Is Ours a Hard Science (and Do We Care)
J. Simmons, Leif Nelson, U. Simonsohn (2011)
False-Positive PsychologyPsychological Science, 22
(2002)
EQS for Windows User's Guide
K. Bollen, J. Long (1993)
Testing Structural Equation Models
R. Kirby (2016)
More Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban LegendsAnnals of Epidemiology, 26
(2013)
How trustworthy is the scientific literature in I-O psychology? “ Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Perspectives on
(2004)
In search of golden rules, Comment on hypothesistesting approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s
G. Banks, Ernest O’Boyle, J. Pollack, Charles White, John Batchelor, Christopher Whelpley, K. Abston, Andrew Bennett, Cheryl Adkins (2016)
Questions About Questionable Research Practices in the Field of ManagementJournal of Management, 42
L. Hayduk, G. Cummings, Kwame Boadu, Hannah Pazderka, Shelley Boulianne (2007)
Testing! testing! one, two, three - Testing the theory in structural equation models!Personality and Individual Differences, 42
P.M. Bentler (1998)
Re: Kurtosis, residuals, fit indices (Message posted to SEMNET listserv)
S. Reise (2012)
The Rediscovery of Bifactor Measurement ModelsMultivariate Behavioral Research, 47
Jennifer Green, Scott Tonidandel, J. Cortina (2016)
Getting Through the GateOrganizational Research Methods, 19
L. Hayduk (2014)
Shame for disrespecting evidence: the personal consequences of insufficient respect for structural equation model testingBMC Medical Research Methodology, 14
J. Cortina, Jennifer Green, Kathleen Keeler, R. Vandenberg (2017)
Degrees of Freedom in SEMOrganizational Research Methods, 20
(2009)
Cautionary note on conveniently dismissing chi-squared goodness-of-fit test results: implications for strategic management research
S. Kepes, Michael McDaniel (2013)
How Trustworthy Is the Scientific Literature in Industrial and Organizational Psychology?Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6
H. Marsh, K. Hau, Zhonglin Wen (2004)
In Search of Golden Rules: Comment on Hypothesis-Testing Approaches to Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) FindingsStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11
N. Kerr (1998)
HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are KnownPersonality and Social Psychology Review, 2
Joseph Mazzola, Jacqueline Deuling (2013)
Forgetting What We Learned as Graduate Students: HARKing and Selective Outcome Reporting in I–O Journal ArticlesIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, 6
(1994)
Transformational leadership theory: Using levels
A. Bedeian, Shannon Taylor, A. Miller (2010)
Management Science on the Credibility Bubble: Cardinal Sins and Various MisdemeanorsAcademy of Management Learning and Education, 9
M. Credé, P. Harms (2015)
25 years of higher‐order confirmatory factor analysis in the organizational sciences: A critical review and development of reporting recommendationsJournal of Organizational Behavior, 36
K. Popper (1972)
Conjectures and refutations;: The growth of scientific knowledge
Maarten Derksen, E. Rietzschel (2013)
Surveillance Is Not the Answer, and Replication Is Not a Test: Comment on Kepes and McDaniel, “How Trustworthy Is the Scientific Literature in I–O Psychology?”Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6
E. Yong (2012)
Replication studies: Bad copyNature, 485
J. Colquitt, Cindy Zapata-Phelan (2007)
TRENDS IN THEORY BUILDING AND THEORY TESTING: A FIVE-DECADE STUDY OF THE ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNALAcademy of Management Journal, 50
(2012)
“ Bad copy “
F. Yammarino, Alan Dubinsky (1994)
Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions.Personnel Psychology, 47
Christopher Nye, F. Drasgow (2011)
Assessing Goodness of Fit: Simple Rules of Thumb Simply Do Not WorkOrganizational Research Methods, 14
P. Smaldino, R. Mcelreath (2016)
The natural selection of bad scienceRoyal Society Open Science, 3
L. Williams, Ernest O’Boyle (2008)
Measurement models for linking latent variables and indicators: A review of human resource management research using parcels.Human Resource Management Review, 18
(1981)
LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago: National Educational Resources
The purpose of this paper is to describe common questionable research practices (QRPs) engaged in by management researchers who use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) as part of their analysis.Design/methodology/approachThe authors describe seven questionable analytic practices and then review one year of journal articles published in three top-tier management journals to estimate the base rate of these practices.FindingsThe authors find that CFA analyses are characterized by a high base rate of QRPs with one practice occurring for over 90 percent of all assessed articles.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings of this paper call into question the validity and trustworthiness of results reported in much of the management literature.Practical implicationsThe authors provide tentative guidelines of how editors and reviewers might reduce the degree to which the management literature is characterized by these QRPs.Originality/valueThis is the first paper to estimate the base rate of six QRPs relating to the widely used analytic tool referred to as CFA in the management literature.
Journal of Managerial Psychology – Emerald Publishing
Published: Feb 19, 2019
Keywords: Structural equation modelling; Scale development; Research methods; Psychometrics
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.