The Desirability of Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Published Scales

Abstract

This paper advances an argument in favor of conducting and reporting confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) on existing and previously validated scales and reporting the findings of those analyses in published research. Previous evidence of scale validity does not necessarily ensure validity in subsequent uses. Instead, scale invariance is best viewed as an empirical question. The case is made that CFA facilitates rather than hinders cross-studies comparisons, and that replication is good scientific practice. Reporting the outcomes of CFA on existing scales provides useful information that facilities knowledge generation and can minimize costly scientific dead-ends.

Keywords:

• Confirmatory factor analysis
• Measurement validation

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Timothy Levine

Timothy R. Levine (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1992) is a professor in the Department of Communication at Michigan State University.

Craig R. Hullett

Craig R. Hullett (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 2000) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Arizona.

Monique Mitchell Turner

Monique Mitchell Turner (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1999) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Maryland.

Maria Knight Lapinski

Maria Knight Lapinski (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 2000) is an assistant professor at Michigan State University.