25 years of higher‐order confirmatory factor analysis in the organizational sciences: A critical review and development of reporting recommendations

By Marcus Crede, P. D. Harms. 2015

171 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Management Science and Operations Research, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b95d0bb2dde7dbc2a052c144642f20c2defe7a28

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Personality, self-efficacy and job resources and their associations with employee engagement, affective commitment and turnover intentions (2020, background): “Credé and Harms (2015) argued that the legitimacy of higher order models cannot be assumed and needs to be tested.”
Systems Perspective of Amazon Mechanical Turk for Organizational Research: Review and Recommendations (2017, background): “Only four articles in the surveyed articles were single study papers (Karim and Behrend, 2014; Karim et al., 2014; Credé and Harms, 2015; Fine and Pirak, 2016); however, our request for unpublished studies found other single study papers.”
What Shall We Do About Grit? A Critical Review of What We Know and What We Don’t Know (2018, unknown): “…Chang, Djurdevic, and Taing (2012) describe seven types of evidence that should be presented when arguing for a higher order construct, while my colleague and I outline the specific types of factor analytic results that would constitute support for a higher order construct (Credé & Harms, 2015).”
Much Ado About Grit: A Meta-Analytic Synthesis of the Grit Literature (2017, result): “Importantly, even if an equality constraint had been imposed at the higher-order level the resultant higher-order model would have exhibited identical fit to a model with two correlated first-order factors and no higher-order factor (see Credé & Harms, 2015 for a discussion).”
Response Speed and Response Consistency as Mutually Validating Indicators of Data Quality in Online Samples (2017, background): “As we detail, the net effect of this dynamic should be to increase the likelihood of Type 1 errors as well as biasing analyses of factor structure (Credé, 2010; Credé & Harms, 2015; Huang et al., 2012).”
Authentic leadership extends beyond work: A multilevel model of work-family conflict and enrichment (2017, methodology): “To test our measure of authentic leadership in line with its conceptualization as a higher-order construct (Walumbwa et al., 2008), we followed the recommendations of Crede and Harms (2015).”
Alpha, Omega, and H Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates: Reviewing These Options and When to Use Them (2021, methodology): “Psychometric testing (higher-order confirmatory factor analysis, see Credé & Harms, 2015) might reveal a strong association between scores on the three empathy subscales that is explained by a higher-order scale.”
Identity leadership going global: Validation of the Identity Leadership Inventory across 20 countries (2018, methodology): “As the previous analyses revealed a good fit for Model D, we tested whether the data support the existence of a higher-order model following the recommendations of Cred e and Harms (2015).”