Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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.
Conway et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: