|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
A Review and Evaluation of Exploratory Factor Analysis Practices in Organizational Research
James M. Conway
Central Connecticut State University conwayj{at}ccsu.edu
Allen I. Huffcutt
Bradley University
The authors surveyed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) practices in three organizational journals from 1985 to 1999 to investigate purposes for conducting EFA and to update and extend Ford, MacCallum, and Tait’s (1986) review. Ford et al. surveyed the same journals from 1975 to 1984, concluding that researchers often applied EFA poorly (e.g., relying too heavily on principal components analysis [PCA], eigenvalues greater than 1 to choose the number of factors, and orthogonal rotations). Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, and Strahan (1999) reached a similar conclusion based on a much smaller sample of studies. This review of 371 studies shows reason for greater optimism. The tendency to use multiple number-of-factors criteria and oblique rotations has increased somewhat. Most important, the authors find that researchers tend to make better decisions when EFA plays a more consequential role in the research. They stress the importance of careful and thoughtful analysis, including decisions about whether and how EFA should be used.
Key Words: exploratory factor analysis • factor extraction • number of factors • factor rotation
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 6, No. 2,
147-168 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/1094428103251541
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
I. Geyskens, R. Krishnan, J.-B. E. M. Steenkamp, and P. V. Cunha
A Review and Evaluation of Meta-Analysis Practices in Management Research
Journal of Management,
March 1, 2009;
35(2):
393 - 419.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Tate
A Longitudinal Study of the Relationships Among Self-Monitoring, Authentic Leadership, and Perceptions of Leadership
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
August 1, 2008;
15(1):
16 - 29.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. J. Weiner, H. Amick, and S.-Y. D. Lee
Review: Conceptualization and Measurement of Organizational Readiness for Change: A Review of the Literature in Health Services Research and Other Fields
Med Care Res Rev,
August 1, 2008;
65(4):
379 - 436.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Shulruf, J. Hattie, and R. Dixon
Development of a New Measurement Tool for Individualism and Collectivism
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
December 1, 2007;
25(4):
385 - 401.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. T. Holt, A. A. Armenakis, H. S. Feild, and S. G. Harris
Readiness for Organizational Change: The Systematic Development of a Scale
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
June 1, 2007;
43(2):
232 - 255.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. Carless and A. Imber
Job and Organizational Characteristics: A Construct Evaluation of Applicant Perceptions
Educational and Psychological Measurement,
April 1, 2007;
67(2):
328 - 341.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. E. Lance, M. M. Butts, and L. C. Michels
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?
Organizational Research Methods,
April 1, 2006;
9(2):
202 - 220.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E. Mattingly and S. L. Berman
Measurement of Corporate Social Action: Discovering Taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini Ratings Data
Business Society,
March 1, 2006;
45(1):
20 - 46.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. R. James, M. D. McIntyre, C. A. Glisson, P. D. Green, T. W. Patton, J. M. LeBreton, B. C. Frost, S. M. Russell, C. J. Sablynski, T. R. Mitchell, et al.
A Conditional Reasoning Measure for Aggression
Organizational Research Methods,
January 1, 2005;
8(1):
69 - 99.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
