Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Questionable research practices when using confirmatory factor analysis

Questionable research practices when using confirmatory factor analysis 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Managerial Psychology Emerald Publishing

Questionable research practices when using confirmatory factor analysis

Journal of Managerial Psychology , Volume 34 (1): 13 – Feb 19, 2019

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/questionable-research-practices-when-using-confirmatory-factor-LRsaV4ZQU1
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
0268-3946
DOI
10.1108/jmp-06-2018-0272
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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

Journal of Managerial PsychologyEmerald Publishing

Published: Feb 19, 2019

Keywords: Structural equation modelling; Scale development; Research methods; Psychometrics

References