Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 938

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Review and Evaluation of Exploratory Factor Analysis Practices in Organizational Research

Conway, James M., Huffcutt, Allen I.·2003·Organizational Research Methods
DOI 10.1177/1094428103251541
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1094428103251541

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 35 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. 10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.610 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.610
  2. 10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.155 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.155 · Paper page
  3. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  4. 10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.695 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.695 · Paper page
  5. Kaiser, H. F. (1956). The varimax method of factor analysis . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
  6. Leslie, J. B. & Fleenor, J. W. (1998). Feedback to managers: A review and comparison of multirater instruments for management development (3rd ed.). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
  7. 10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.544 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.544 · Paper page
  8. 10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.514 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.514 · Paper page
  9. SAS Institute. (1990). SAS/STAT user’s guide (Version 6, 4th ed., Vol. 1). Cary, NC: Author.
  10. 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.316 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.316 · Paper page
  11. 10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.414 · doi:10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.414 · Paper page
  12. 10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.432 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 938

Metadata

Authors
Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I.
Venue
Organizational Research Methods
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2003-04
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
147-168
ISSN
  • 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7425
DOI
10.1177/1094428103251541
OpenAlex
W2146078492
Cited by
938
References
35
FWCI
10.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Review and Evaluation of Exploratory Factor Analysis Practices in Organizational Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094428103251541
The paper
Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A Review and Evaluation of Exploratory Factor Analysis Practices in Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103251541

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.