Questionable research practices when using confirmatory factor analysis

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to describe common questionable research practices (QRPs) engaged in by management researchers who use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) as part of their analysis. Design/methodology/approach: The authors describe seven questionable analytic practices and then review one year of journal articles published in three top-tier management journals to estimate the base rate of these practices. Findings: The authors find that CFA analyses are characterized by a high base rate of QRPs with one practice occurring for over 90 percent of all assessed articles. Research limitations/implications: The findings of this paper call into question the validity and trustworthiness of results reported in much of the management literature. Practical implications: The authors provide tentative guidelines of how editors and reviewers might reduce the degree to which the management literature is characterized by these QRPs. Originality/value: This is the first paper to estimate the base rate of six QRPs relating to the widely used analytic tool referred to as CFA in the management literature.