Cited by 2,242Psychometric Methodologies and TestingMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

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

Jackson, Dennis L., Gillaspy, J. Arthur, Purc-Stephenson, Rebecca·2009·Psychological Methods

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0014694

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 87 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R.
Affiliations
University of Windsor (CA)
Venue
Psychological Methods
Published
2009-03
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
6-23
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
OpenAlex
W2129748849
Cited by
2,242
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 94 · 2025: 187 · 2024: 201 · 2023: 228 · 2022: 241 · 2021: 195 · 2020: 170 · 2019: 142 · 2018: 150 · 2017: 135 · 2016: 111 · 2015: 98 · 2014: 86 · 2013: 84 · 2012: 44
FWCI
54.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
confirmatory factor analysis, reporting practices, reporting guidelines, model fit indices, selective reporting, missing data, normality testing, reporting checklist, APA journals
MeSH terms
Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Mathematical Computing, Periodicals as Topic, Psychology, Publishing, Research, Research Design, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Guideline Adherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review