Recovering Substantive Factor Loadings in the Presence of Acquiescence Bias: A Comparison of Three Approaches.

Researchers are often advised to write balanced scales (containing an equal number of positively and negatively worded items) when measuring psychological attributes. This practice is recommended to control for acquiescence bias (ACQ). However, little advice has been given on what to do with such data if the researcher subsequently wants to evaluate a 1-factor model for the scale. This article compares 3 approaches for dealing with the presence of ACQ bias, which make different assumptions: an ipsatization approach based on the work of Chan and Bentler (CB; 1993), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach that includes an ACQ factor with equal loadings (Billiet & McClendon, 2000; Mirowsky & Ross, 1991), and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) approach with a target rotation (Ferrando, Lorenzo-Seva, & Chico, 2003). We also examine the "do nothing" approach which fits the 1-factor model to the data ignoring the presence of ACQ bias. Our main findings are that the CFA method performs best overall and that it is robust to the violation of its assumptions, the EFA and the CB approaches work well when their assumptions are strictly met, and the "do nothing" approach can be surprisingly robust when the ACQ factor is not very strong.