Skip to main content Accesibility Help
×
×
Home

How Data Analysis Can Dominate Interpretations of Dominant General Factors

  • Brenton M. Wiernik (a1), Michael P. Wilmot (a1) and Jack W. Kostal (a1)
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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brenton M. Wiernik, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: wiernik@workpsy.ch
References
Hide All
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/documentation
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-032414-111427
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/d6ht4b
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/s10869-010-9181-6
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.x
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/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.14
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.4.1.84
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.1975
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.
Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667696. http://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
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/10/4qw
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/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology
  • ISSN: 1754-9426
  • EISSN: 1754-9434
  • URL: /core/journals/industrial-and-organizational-psychology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed