Reporting Practice and Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Educational Research Journals: Errors and Explanation

By R. Henson, Robert M. Capraro, Mary Margaret Capraro. 2001

100 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e4e27a28505fc49ec0caa352a5ac80433ba17d02

How researchers see this paper

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

1. B. Shuck
2. Thomas G. Reio Jr.
3. J. Nelson
4. Rebecca M. Bustamante
5. Hanna Eklöf
6. Bridgid M. Finn
7. Suthinee Rurkkhum
8. Rajashi Ghosh

Citations in the corpus

• Mixed Research as a Tool for Developing Quantitative Instruments (2010, methodology): “For excellent information as to how to conduct exploratory factor analysis in a rigorous way, we refer the reader to Henson, Capraro, and Capraro (2004), Henson and Roberts, 2006; Hetzel (1996), Kieffer (1999), Onwuegbuzie and Daniel (2003), Thompson (2004), and Tinsley and Tinsley (1987).”
• Development and Validation of Scores From an Instrument Measuring Student Test-Taking Motivation (2006, methodology): “Both methods have been shown to be superior to conventional factor retention criteria such as Catell’s scree test or the eigenvaluegreater-than-one criterion (Henson et al., 2004; O’Connor, 2000; Thompson & Daniel, 1996).”
• Exploratory Factor Analysis (2015, methodology): “Both MAP and parallel analysis have been found to be relatively accurate factor retention rules, with parallel analysis emerging as the most accurate (Fabrigar et al., 1999; Henson et al., 2004).”