25 years of higher‐order confirmatory factor analysis in the organizational sciences: A critical review and development of reporting recommendations

We discuss how confirmatory factor analysis results should be used to examine potential higher‐order constructs and advocate that researchers present five types of evidence, which are as follows: (1) the ability of the higher‐order model to reproduce the observed covariation among manifest variables; (2) the ability of the higher‐order model to reproduce the observed covariation among manifest variables better than more parsimonious alternative models—and no less well than less parsimonious alternative models; (3) the ability of the higher‐order model to reproduce the observed covariation among lower‐order factors; (4) the ability of the higher‐order factor to explain variation in lower‐order factors; and (5) the ability of the higher‐order factor to explain variation in manifest variables. We illustrate how this type of evidence could be presented with a worked example and contrast our recommendations with the manner in which higher‐order confirmatory factor analysis has been used in the organizational sciences over the past 25 years to support claims regarding higher‐order constructs such as core self‐evaluations and transformational leadership. Our review shows that a substantial proportion of the 44 examined articles failed to present enough evidence to allow readers to understand the size and importance of higher‐order factors. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.