The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) procedure is one of the most commonly used in social and behavioral sciences. However, it is also one of the most criticized due to the poor management researchers usually display. The main goal is to examine the relationship between practices usually considered more appropriate and actual decisions made by researchers. The use of exploratory factor analysis is examined in 117 papers published between 2011 and 2012 in 3 Spanish psychological journals with the highest impact within the previous five years. RESULTS show significant rates of questionable decisions in conducting EFA, based on unjustified or mistaken decisions regarding the method of extraction, retention, and rotation of factors. Overall, the current review provides support for some improvement guidelines regarding how to apply and report an EFA.

Previous research evaluating the performance of Horn's parallel analysis (PA) factor retention method with ordinal variables has produced unexpected findings. Specifically, PA with Pearson correlations has performed as well as or better than PA with the more theoretically appropriate polychoric correlations. Seeking to clarify these findings, the current study employed a more comprehensive simulation study that included the systematic manipulation of 7 factors related to the data (sample size, factor loading, number of variables per factor, number of factors, factor correlation, number of response categories, and skewness) as well as 3 factors related to the PA method (type of correlation matrix, extraction method, and eigenvalue percentile). The results from the simulation study show that PA with either Pearson or polychoric correlations is particularly sensitive to the sample size, factor loadings, number of variables per factor, and factor correlations. However, whereas PA with polychorics is relatively robust to the skewness of the ordinal variables, PA with Pearson correlations frequently retains difficulty factors and is generally inaccurate with large levels of skewness. In light of these findings, we recommend the use of PA with polychoric correlations for the dimensionality assessment of ordinal-level data.

One important problem in the measurement of non-cognitive characteristics such as personality traits and attitudes is that it has traditionally been made through Likert scales, which are susceptible to response biases such as social desirability (SDR) and acquiescent (ACQ) responding. Given the variability of these response styles in the population, ignoring their possible effects on the scores may compromise the fairness and the validity of the assessments. Also, response-style-induced errors of measurement can affect the reliability estimates and overestimate convergent validity by correlating higher with other Likert-scale-based measures. Conversely, it can attenuate the predictive power over non-Likert-based indicators, given that the scores contain more errors. This study compares the validity of the Big Five personality scores obtained: (1) ignoring the SDR and ACQ in graded-scale items (GSQ), (2) accounting for SDR and ACQ with a compensatory IRT model, and (3) using forced-choice blocks with a multi-unidimensional pairwise preference model (MUPP) variant for dominance items. The overall results suggest that ignoring SDR and ACQ offered the worst validity evidence, with a higher correlation between personality and SDR scores. The two remaining strategies have their own advantages and disadvantages. The results from the empirical reliability and the convergent validity analysis indicate that when modeling social desirability with graded-scale items, the SDR factor apparently captures part of the variance of the Agreeableness factor. On the other hand, the correlation between the corrected GSQ-based Openness to Experience scores, and the University Access Examination grades was higher than the one with the uncorrected GSQ-based scores, and considerably higher than that using the estimates from the forced-choice data. Conversely, the criterion-related validity of the Forced Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) scores was similar to the results found in meta-analytic studies, correlating higher with Conscientiousness. Nonetheless, the FCQ-scores had considerably lower reliabilities and would demand administering more blocks. Finally, the results are discussed, and some notes are provided for the treatment of SDR and ACQ in future studies.

An early step in the process of construct validation consists of establishing the fit of an unrestricted "exploratory" factorial model for a prespecified number of common factors. For this initial unrestricted model, researchers have often recommended and used fit indices to estimate the number of factors to retain. Despite the logical appeal of this approach, little is known about the actual accuracy of fit indices in the estimation of data dimensionality. The present study aimed to reduce this gap by systematically evaluating the performance of 4 commonly used fit indices-the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)-in the estimation of the number of factors with categorical variables, and comparing it with what is arguably the current golden rule, Horn's (1965) parallel analysis. The results indicate that the CFI and TLI provide nearly identical estimations and are the most accurate fit indices, followed at a step below by the RMSEA, and then by the SRMR, which gives notably poor dimensionality estimates. Difficulties in establishing optimal cutoff values for the fit indices and the general superiority of parallel analysis, however, suggest that applied researchers are better served by complementing their theoretical considerations regarding dimensionality with the estimates provided by the latter method.