Estudio de Seguimiento de las Recomendaciones sobre Análisis Factorial Exploratorio en RIDEP

  1. David Paniagua 1
  2. Jesús M. Alvarado 1
  3. María Olivares 1
  4. Irene Ruiz 1
  5. Marcos Romero-Suárez 2
  6. Raimundo Aguayo-Estremera 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Psicología
  2. 2 Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Instituto de Estudios Feministas
Revista:
Revista iberoamericana de diagnóstico y evaluación psicológica

ISSN: 1135-3848

Ano de publicación: 2022

Título do exemplar: Avances en Medición en Psicología

Volume: 5

Número: 66

Páxinas: 127-140

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.21865/RIDEP66.5.10 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Revista iberoamericana de diagnóstico y evaluación psicológica

Resumo

In 2019, a review of the quality of the RIDEP publications that contained an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was published. They asses the last six issues until the second volume of 2018. In that work, the adherence of the journal articles was explored. In the present work, the evaluation is extended, analyzing all the publications with an EFA from the third volume of 2018 to the third volume of 2022. We evaluated (a) the design, (b) aspects prior to the analysis, (c) the execution of the EFA and (d) the written information of 83 EFA. In general, the quality of the information of the articles with EFA published in the RIDEP has improved compared to the previous review, but there are some elements where an effort is still necessary. Some recommendations for authors, reviewers and the journal are discussed.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aguayo, R. (2018). La investigación en el síndrome de burnout: Reflexión crítica desde una perspectiva metodológica. Apuntes de Psicología, 36(1-2), 93-100.
  • Aguayo, R., Vargas, C., Emilia, I., & Lozano, L. M. (2011). A meta-analytic reliability generalization study of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 11(2), 343-361.
  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
  • Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications.
  • Damásio, B. F. (2012). Uso da análise fatorial exploratória em psicologia. Avaliação Psicológica: Interamerican Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11(2), 213-228.
  • Elosua, P. (2003). Sobre la validez de los tests. Psicothema, 15(2), 315-321.
  • Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2011). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.
  • Ferrando, P. J., & Anguiano-Carrasco, I. (2010). El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en psicología. Papeles del Psicológco, 31(1), 18-33.
  • Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: Algunas consideraciones adicionales. Anales de Psicología, 30, 6.
  • Ferrando, P. J., Lorenzo-Seva, U., HernándezDorado, A., & Muñiz, J. (2022). Decálogo para el Análisis Factorial de los Ítems de un Test. Psicothema, 34.1, 7-17. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2021.456
  • Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615612150
  • Flora, D. B. (2020). Your coefficient Alpha is probably wrong, but Which Coefficient Omega Is Right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 484-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920951747
  • Freiberg-Hoffmann, A., & Romero-Medina, A. (2021). Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students: Comparación de las propiedades psicométricas entre las versiones de lápiz-papel y online en estudiantes universitarios. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica, 4(64), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP61.4.11
  • Frías-Navarro, D., & Pascual, M. (2012). Prácticas del análisis factorial exploratorio (afe) en la investigación sobre conducta del consumidory marketing. Suma Psicológica, 19(1), 47-58.
  • Gagnier, J. J., Lai, J., Mokkink, L. B., & Terwee, C. B. (2021). COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 30(8), 2197-2218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02822-4
  • Gignac, G. E. (2014). On the inappropriateness of using items to calculate total scale score reliability via Coefficient Alpha for multidimensional scales. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30(2), 130-139. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000181
  • Goretzko, D., Pham, T. T. H., & Bühner, M. (2021). Exploratory factor analysis: Current use, methodological developments and recommendations for good practice. Current Psychology, 40(7), 3510-3521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00300-2
  • Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies: A typology of reviews. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. \https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
  • Hussey, I., & Hughes, S. (2020). Hidden invalidity among 15 commonly used measures in social and personality psychology. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(2), 166-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919882903
  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2014). How to make more published research true. PLoS Medicine, 11(10), e1001747. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747
  • Izquierdo, I., Olea, J., & Abad, F. J. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis in validation studies: Uses and recommendations. Psicothema, 26.3, 395-400. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.349
  • Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & PurcStephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6-23. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014694
  • John, L., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953
  • Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. Guilford Publications.
  • Ledesma, R., Ferrando, P., & Tosi, J. (2019). Uso del Análisis Factorial Exploratorio en RIDEP. Recomendaciones para autores y revisores. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica, 52(3), 173-180. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP52.3.13
  • Lloret-Segura, S., Ferreres-Traver, A., HernándezBaeza, A., & Tomás-Marco, I. (2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: Una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 1151-1169. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361
  • Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741
  • Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., Fidler, F., Hilgard, J., Struhl, M. K., Nuijten, M. B., Rohrer, J. M., Romero, F., Scheel, A. M., Scherer, L. D., Schönbrodt, F. D., & Vazire, S. (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science, 33. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821114157
  • Ondé, D., & Alvarado, J. M. (2020). Reconsidering the conditions for conducting confirmatory factor analysis. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 23. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.56
  • Osborne, J. W. (2014). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis. Scotts Valley. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412995627.d8
  • Pérez, E. R., & Medrano, L. (2010). Análisis factorial exploratorio: Bases conceptuales y metodológicas. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 2(1), 58-66.
  • Picho, K., & Artino, A. R. (2016). 7 Deadly sins in educational research. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 8(4), 483-487. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-16-00332.1
  • Reio, T. G., & Shuck, B. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 17(1), 12-25.
  • Sánchez‐Meca, J., Marín‐Martínez, F., López‐López, J. A., Núñez‐Núñez, R. M., RubioAparicio, M., López‐García, J. J., López‐Pina, J. A., Blázquez‐Rincón, D. M., López‐Ibáñez, C., & López‐Nicolás, R. (2021). Improving the reporting quality of reliability generalization meta‐analyses: The REGEMA checklist. Research Synthesis Methods, 12(4), 516-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1487
  • Saunders, R., & Savulescu, J. (2008). Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: What can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud?. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(3), 214-221. http://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.023721
  • Schreiber, J. B. (2008). Core reporting practices in structural equation modeling. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 4(2), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2007.04.003
  • Thurstone, L. L. (1935). The vectors of mind. University of Chicago Press.
  • Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis. The University Chicago Press.
  • Toro, R., Peña-Sarmiento, M., Avendaño-Prieto, B. L., Mejía-Vélez, S., & Bernal-Torres, A. (2022). Análisis empírico del Coeficiente Alfa de Cronbach según opciones de respuesta, muestra y observaciones atípicas. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica, 2(63), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP63.2.02
  • Trizano-Hermosilla, I., & Alvarado, J. M. (2016). Best alternatives to Cronbach’s Alpha reliability in realistic conditions: Congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769
  • Van Dijk, D., Manor, O., & Carey, L. (2014). Publication metrics and success on the academic job market. Current Biology, 24(11), R516-R517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.04.039
Fonte de datos: Dialnet