OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine the use and quality of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in articles published in Rehabilitation Psychology. DESIGN: Trained raters examined 66 separate exploratory factor analyses in 47 articles published between 1999 and April 2014. The raters recorded the aim of the EFAs, the distributional statistics, sample size, factor retention method(s), extraction and rotation method(s), and whether the pattern coefficients, structure coefficients, and the matrix of association were reported. RESULTS: The primary use of the EFAs was scale development, but the most widely used extraction and rotation method was principle component analysis, with varimax rotation. When determining how many factors to retain, multiple methods (e.g., scree plot, parallel analysis) were used most often. Many articles did not report enough information to allow for the duplication of their results. CONCLUSION: EFA relies on authors' choices (e.g., factor retention rules extraction, rotation methods), and few articles adhered to all of the best practices. The current findings are compared to other empirical investigations into the use of EFA in published research. Recommendations for improving EFA reporting practices in rehabilitation psychology research are provided.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine the use and quality of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in articles published in Rehabilitation Psychology. DESIGN: Trained raters examined 66 separate exploratory factor analyses in 47 articles published between 1999 and April 2014. The raters recorded the aim of the EFAs, the distributional statistics, sample size, factor retention method(s), extraction and rotation method(s), and whether the pattern coefficients, structure coefficients, and the matrix of association were reported. RESULTS: The primary use of the EFAs was scale development, but the most widely used extraction and rotation method was principle component analysis, with varimax rotation. When determining how many factors to retain, multiple methods (e.g., scree plot, parallel analysis) were used most often. Many articles did not report enough information to allow for the duplication of their results. CONCLUSION:EFA relies on authors' choices (e.g., factor retention rules extraction, rotation methods), and few articles adhered to all of the best practices. The current findings are compared to other empirical investigations into the use of EFA in published research. Recommendations for improving EFA reporting practices in rehabilitation psychology research are provided.