Questionable research practices when using confirmatory factor analysis

Abstract

Purpose 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/approach The 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. Findings The 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/implications The findings of this paper call into question the validity and trustworthiness of results reported in much of the management literature. Practical implications The authors provide tentative guidelines of how editors and reviewers might reduce the degree to which the management literature is characterized by these QRPs. Originality/value This 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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 99 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.