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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
