Destruction of measurement scale through exploratory factor analysis in production and operations research

Abstract This paper aims to assess the use of Exploratory Factor Analysis by Production and Operations researchers, discussing the adequacy of its application. We analyzed 97 papers published between 2010 and 2015 in the Production and Operations area -- of which 61 and 36 were published in international and Brazilian journals, respectively. These papers contain 140 different applications of Factor Analysis. The research shows that confirmatory techniques are prevalent in international papers, as well as exploratory techniques to evaluate the problem of common method bias. Conversely, the papers in Brazilian journals typically use the exploratory technique in more traditional ways, such as to confirm the unidimensionality of the construct, or still to generate scores for use in other statistical techniques. Despite the textbooks for the AFE teaching focus exclusively on the use of AFE in the exploratory mode (to identify the number and meaning of the common factors), this use has been less frequent in published articles, both national and international. Moreover, the research shows that the inappropriate use of exploratory (rather than confirmatory) factor analysis in four Brazilian papers resulted in the “destruction of theory”. These findings suggest that national research have been using exploratory factor analysis in a questionable way; in this sense we propose scholars discuss this topic in order to disseminate the good practices.摘要 本文旨在评估生产与运作领域研究者对探索性因子分析（Exploratory Factor Analysis）的使用现状，并探讨其应用的恰当性。我们分析了2010年至2015年间发表于生产与运作领域的97篇论文，其中61篇刊载于国际期刊，36篇发表于巴西本土期刊。上述论文共包含140次不同的因子分析应用案例。研究显示，国际期刊论文中验证性因子分析技术应用较为普遍，同时研究者也会借助探索性技术评估共同方法偏差问题。与之形成鲜明对比的是，巴西期刊刊载的论文通常以更为传统的方式使用探索性因子分析，例如验证构念的单维性，或是生成可用于其他统计技术的得分值。尽管因子分析相关教材仅讲授探索性模式下的因子分析应用——即识别公共因子的数量与内涵，但这类标准用法在国内外已发表的论文中均较为少见。此外，研究发现，4篇巴西期刊论文错误地采用了探索性因子分析（而非验证性因子分析），最终导致了"理论解构"。上述研究结果表明，本土研究对探索性因子分析的使用存在诸多值得商榷之处；据此，我们呼吁学界就此议题展开讨论，以推广因子分析的正确实践方法。