Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-9mfzn Total loading time: 1.05 Render date: 2021-04-19T13:36:59.303Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

How Data Analysis Can Dominate Interpretations of Dominant General Factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2015

Brenton M. Wiernik
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota
Michael P. Wilmot
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota
Jack W. Kostal
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Extract

A dominant general factor (DGF) is present when a single factor accounts for the majority of reliable variance across a set of measures (Ree, Carretta, & Teachout, 2015). In the presence of a DGF, dimension scores necessarily reflect a blend of both general and specific factors. For some constructs, specific factors contain little unique reliable variance after controlling for the general factor (Reise, 2012), whereas for others, specific factors contribute a more substantial proportion of variance (e.g., Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim, & Carson, 2002). We agree with Ree et al. that the presence of a DGF has implications for interpreting scores. However, we argue that the conflation of general and specific factor variances has the strongest implications for understanding how constructs relate to external variables. When dimension scales contain substantial general and specific factor variance, traditional methods of data analysis will produce ambiguous or even misleading results. In this commentary, we show how several common data analytic methods, when used with data sets containing a DGF, will substantively alter conclusions.

Type
Commentaries
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Boker, S. M., Neale, M. C., Maes, H. H., Wilde, M. J., Spiegel, M., Brick, T. R., . . . Team OpenMx. (2015). OpenMx 2.0 user guide (Release No. 2.0.14157). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia. Retrieved from http://openmx.psyc.virginia.edu/documentationGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. P., & Wiernik, B. M. (2015). The modeling and assessment of work performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 4774. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, F. F., Hayes, A., Carver, C. S., Laurenceau, J.-P., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Journal of Personality, 80, 219251. http://doi.org/10/d6ht4bCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325334. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, B. D., Bell, S. T., Arthur, W. Jr., & Decuir, A. D. (2008). Relationships between facets of job satisfaction and task and contextual performance. Applied Psychology, 57, 441465. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00328.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., & Carson, K. P. (2002). Assessing the construct validity of the Job Descriptive Index: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1432. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 8499. http://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAbee, S. T., Oswald, F. L., & Connelly, B. S. (2014). Bifactor models of personality and college student performance: A broad versus narrow view. European Journal of Personality, 28, 604619. http://doi.org/10.1002/per.1975Google Scholar
Ree, M. J., Carretta, T. R., & Teachout, M. S. (2015). Pervasiveness of dominant general factors in organizational measurement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8 (3), 409427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667696. http://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salgado, J. F., Moscoso, S., & Berges, A. (2013). Conscientiousness, its facets, and the prediction of job performance ratings: Evidence against the narrow measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21, 7484. http://doi.org/10/4qwCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247252. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 11
Total number of PDF views: 101 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

How Data Analysis Can Dominate Interpretations of Dominant General Factors
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

How Data Analysis Can Dominate Interpretations of Dominant General Factors
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

How Data Analysis Can Dominate Interpretations of Dominant General Factors
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *