The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“the fit indices, aligning with prior studies (Jackson et al., 2009; Hair et al., 2012) recommendations, affirm a favorable fit for the data (χ2/df = 1.259, GFI = 0.946, NFI = 0.960, CFI = 0.992, TLI = 0.990, IFI = 0.992, RMSEA = 0.029) and the structural model.”
From Mindfulness and self-rated performance among novice athletes in China: a sequential mediating role of flow and cognitive anxiety (2025) · cites this paper as Jackson et al., 2009
In the citing paper
“The model fit results from this analysis meet the threshold guidelines as outlined in Hu & Bentler and Jackson et al. [29, 30].”
From Supporting underrepresented students in health sciences: a fuzzy cognitive mapping approach to program evaluation (2024) · cites this paper as [30]
Citations
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
(1998) · Cited by 36,049
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266
Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 · Cited by 20,015
Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
Clogg, C. C., & Bollen, K. A. (1991) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2072165 · Cited by 17,475
Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research
Brown, T. A. (2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2769 · Cited by 15,621
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424 · Cited by 12,298
Missing data: our view of the state of the art
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.2.147 · Cited by 11,638
Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.130 · Cited by 10,418
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 87 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Li, C.-H. (2016) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7 · Cited by 3,031
The Performance of RMSEA in Models With Small Degrees of Freedom
Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124114543236 · Cited by 2,841
Applications of structural equation modeling (SEM) in ecological studies: an updated review
Fan, Y., Chen, J., Shirkey, G., John, R., Wu, S. R., Park, H., & Shao, C. (2016) · Ecological Processes · doi:10.1186/s13717-016-0063-3 · Cited by 1,640
Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling.
West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012) · Cited by 1,232
Ten Steps in Scale Development and Reporting: A Guide for Researchers
Carpenter, S. (2018) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583 · Cited by 1,141
Metadata
- 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
