Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations

Reporting practices in 194 confirmatory factor analysis studies (1,409 factor models) published in American Psychological Association journals from 1998 to 2006 were reviewed and compared with established reporting guidelines. Three research questions were addressed: (a) how do actual reporting prac...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychological methods Jg. 14; H. 1; S. 6
Hauptverfasser: Jackson, Dennis L, Gillaspy, J Arthur, Purc-Stephenson, Rebecca
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: United States 01.03.2009
Schlagworte:
Factor Analysis, Statistical
Guideline Adherence
Humans
Mathematical Computing
Models, Statistical
Periodicals as Topic
Psychology - standards
Publishing
Reproducibility of Results
Research - statistics & numerical data
Research Design - statistics & numerical data
Software
ISSN:1082-989X
Online-Zugang:Weitere Angaben
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Reporting practices in 194 confirmatory factor analysis studies (1,409 factor models) published in American Psychological Association journals from 1998 to 2006 were reviewed and compared with established reporting guidelines. Three research questions were addressed: (a) how do actual reporting practices compare with published guidelines? (b) how do researchers report model fit in light of divergent perspectives on the use of ancillary fit indices (e.g., L.-T. Hu & P. M. Bentler, 1999; H. W. Marsh, K.-T., Hau, & Z. Wen, 2004)? and (c) are fit measures that support hypothesized models reported more often than fit measures that are less favorable? Results indicate some positive findings with respect to reporting practices including proposing multiple models a priori and near universal reporting of the chi-square significance test. However, many deficiencies were found such as lack of information regarding missing data and assessment of normality. Additionally, the authors found increases in reported values of some incremental fit statistics and no statistically significant evidence that researchers selectively report measures of fit that support their preferred model. Recommendations for reporting are summarized and a checklist is provided to help editors, reviewers, and authors improve reporting practices.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
ISSN:1082-989X
DOI:10.1037/a0014694