因子分析:应对反应偏差

Q4 Business, Management and Accounting International Journal of Management and Business Research Pub Date : 2023-03-30 DOI:10.37391/ijbmr.110103
R. Goedegebuure, Manorama Adhikari
{"title":"因子分析:应对反应偏差","authors":"R. Goedegebuure, Manorama Adhikari","doi":"10.37391/ijbmr.110103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper proposes an innovative method for factor analyzing data that potentially contains individual response bias. Past methods include the use of “ipsative” data, or, related to that, “ipsatized” data. Unfortunately, factor analysis as the main method used for analyzing the dimensionality of data, cannot be applied to ipsative data. In contrast, normalization of data as an alternative method to filter out response bias, is not hampered by the technical statistical issues inherent to applying multivariate techniques to ipsative data. Using high-quality data from a survey in Nepal that makes use of – among others – the High-Performance Organizations (HPO) framework, this paper shows that the traditional approach of directly applying Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) starting from an existing model or theory, is inferior to our approach. Even applying Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to the raw (non-normalized) data before using CFA, is unable to detect the optimal dimensionality, or structure, in the data. A better structure can be obtained by performing EFA on normalized data that corrects for response bias in the raw data. This paper convincingly shows that the newly identified structure is superior to the original structure suggested by the HPO framework. Applying a CFA using the newly detected structure on the raw data, gives excellent goodness-of-fit statistics, with more items retained, and no need of forced methods to improve the model fit. The findings suggest that existing models and questionnaires based on these models, are not necessarily as valid and reliable as empirical studies that make use of traditional analyses seem to suggest. When adopting existing instruments, researchers are advised to critically check the validity and reliability of these instruments – especially those vulnerable to response bias - and to apply the procedures laid out in this paper, in order to enhance the quality of their research, and to inform future researchers who consider using the same instruments or to warn them about the potential shortcomings of these instruments.","PeriodicalId":37927,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management and Business Research","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factor Analysis: Dealing with Response Bias\",\"authors\":\"R. Goedegebuure, Manorama Adhikari\",\"doi\":\"10.37391/ijbmr.110103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper proposes an innovative method for factor analyzing data that potentially contains individual response bias. Past methods include the use of “ipsative” data, or, related to that, “ipsatized” data. Unfortunately, factor analysis as the main method used for analyzing the dimensionality of data, cannot be applied to ipsative data. In contrast, normalization of data as an alternative method to filter out response bias, is not hampered by the technical statistical issues inherent to applying multivariate techniques to ipsative data. Using high-quality data from a survey in Nepal that makes use of – among others – the High-Performance Organizations (HPO) framework, this paper shows that the traditional approach of directly applying Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) starting from an existing model or theory, is inferior to our approach. Even applying Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to the raw (non-normalized) data before using CFA, is unable to detect the optimal dimensionality, or structure, in the data. A better structure can be obtained by performing EFA on normalized data that corrects for response bias in the raw data. This paper convincingly shows that the newly identified structure is superior to the original structure suggested by the HPO framework. Applying a CFA using the newly detected structure on the raw data, gives excellent goodness-of-fit statistics, with more items retained, and no need of forced methods to improve the model fit. The findings suggest that existing models and questionnaires based on these models, are not necessarily as valid and reliable as empirical studies that make use of traditional analyses seem to suggest. When adopting existing instruments, researchers are advised to critically check the validity and reliability of these instruments – especially those vulnerable to response bias - and to apply the procedures laid out in this paper, in order to enhance the quality of their research, and to inform future researchers who consider using the same instruments or to warn them about the potential shortcomings of these instruments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Management and Business Research\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Management and Business Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37391/ijbmr.110103\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Business, Management and Accounting\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Management and Business Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37391/ijbmr.110103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文提出了一种创新的方法来分析可能包含个体反应偏差的数据。过去的方法包括使用“被动”数据,或者与之相关的“被动”数据。遗憾的是,因子分析作为分析数据维度的主要方法,并不适用于替代数据。相比之下,数据规范化作为一种过滤掉响应偏差的替代方法,不会受到将多变量技术应用于替代数据所固有的技术统计问题的阻碍。本文使用来自尼泊尔的一项调查的高质量数据,其中使用了高性能组织(HPO)框架,表明从现有模型或理论开始直接应用验证性因子分析(CFA)的传统方法不如我们的方法。即使在使用CFA之前对原始(非规范化)数据应用探索性因子分析(EFA),也无法检测到数据中的最佳维度或结构。通过对规范化数据执行EFA,可以获得更好的结构,从而纠正原始数据中的响应偏差。本文令人信服地表明,新识别的结构优于HPO框架所建议的原始结构。在原始数据上使用新检测到的结构应用CFA,可以得到很好的拟合优度统计,保留了更多的项目,并且不需要强制方法来改善模型拟合。研究结果表明,现有的模型和基于这些模型的调查问卷并不一定像利用传统分析的实证研究所表明的那样有效和可靠。在采用现有仪器时,建议研究人员严格检查这些仪器的有效性和可靠性-特别是那些容易受到反应偏差影响的仪器-并应用本文中列出的程序,以提高他们的研究质量,并告知未来考虑使用相同仪器的研究人员或警告他们这些仪器的潜在缺点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Factor Analysis: Dealing with Response Bias
This paper proposes an innovative method for factor analyzing data that potentially contains individual response bias. Past methods include the use of “ipsative” data, or, related to that, “ipsatized” data. Unfortunately, factor analysis as the main method used for analyzing the dimensionality of data, cannot be applied to ipsative data. In contrast, normalization of data as an alternative method to filter out response bias, is not hampered by the technical statistical issues inherent to applying multivariate techniques to ipsative data. Using high-quality data from a survey in Nepal that makes use of – among others – the High-Performance Organizations (HPO) framework, this paper shows that the traditional approach of directly applying Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) starting from an existing model or theory, is inferior to our approach. Even applying Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to the raw (non-normalized) data before using CFA, is unable to detect the optimal dimensionality, or structure, in the data. A better structure can be obtained by performing EFA on normalized data that corrects for response bias in the raw data. This paper convincingly shows that the newly identified structure is superior to the original structure suggested by the HPO framework. Applying a CFA using the newly detected structure on the raw data, gives excellent goodness-of-fit statistics, with more items retained, and no need of forced methods to improve the model fit. The findings suggest that existing models and questionnaires based on these models, are not necessarily as valid and reliable as empirical studies that make use of traditional analyses seem to suggest. When adopting existing instruments, researchers are advised to critically check the validity and reliability of these instruments – especially those vulnerable to response bias - and to apply the procedures laid out in this paper, in order to enhance the quality of their research, and to inform future researchers who consider using the same instruments or to warn them about the potential shortcomings of these instruments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Management and Business Research
International Journal of Management and Business Research Business, Management and Accounting-Business and International Management
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: International Journal of Management and Business Research (IJMBR) is a scholarly, referred, peer reviewed publication of Graduate School of Management and Economics, Science and Research Branch, IAU in Iran.
期刊最新文献
The Relationship between Commercial Banks Characteristic and Economic Growth in Vietnam Impact of Metaverse and Advanced Technology on the Enterprises Corporate Governance, Firm Characteristics and Financial Statements Quality: Evidence from Vietnamese listed firms Machine Maintenance Type and Quality of Output: Evidence from Ghanaian Manufacturing Firms The Mediating Role of New Product Development in the Relationship Between Entrepreneurial Marketing and Growth Intentions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1