Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe common questionable research practices (QRPs) engaged in by management researchers who use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) as part of their analysis. Design/methodology/approach The authors describe seven questionable analytic practices and then review one year of journal articles published in three top-tier management journals to estimate the base rate of these practices. Findings The authors find that CFA analyses are characterized by a high base rate of QRPs with one practice occurring for over 90 percent of all assessed articles. Research limitations/implications The findings of this paper call into question the validity and trustworthiness of results reported in much of the management literature. Practical implications The authors provide tentative guidelines of how editors and reviewers might reduce the degree to which the management literature is characterized by these QRPs. Originality/value This is the first paper to estimate the base rate of six QRPs relating to the widely used analytic tool referred to as CFA in the management literature.

中文翻译：

---

使用验证性因子分析时可疑的研究实践

目的本文的目的是描述使用确认性因子分析（CFA）作为分析一部分的管理研究人员所从事的常见可疑研究实践（QRP）。设计/方法/方法作者描述了七种有问题的分析方法，然后回顾了在三本顶级管理期刊上发表的为期一年的期刊文章，以估计这些实践的基本比率。结果作者发现，CFA分析的特点是QRP的高基数，其中90％以上的所有评估文章都采用一种实践。研究的局限性/意义本文的发现质疑了许多管理文献中所报告结果的有效性和可信赖性。实际意义作者提供了有关编辑者和审阅者如何降低这些QRP表征管理文献的程度的暂定指南。原创性/价值这是第一篇评估与管理文献中被称为CFA的广泛使用的分析工具有关的六个QRP基准利率的论文。