Is exploratory factor analysis always to be preferred? A systematic comparison of factor analytic techniques...

The number of available factor analytic techniques has been increasing in the last decades. However, the lack of clear guidelines and exhaustive comparison studies between the techniques might hinder that these valuable methodological advances make their way to applied research. The present paper evaluates the performance of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), CFA with sequential model modification using modification indices and the Saris procedure, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with different rotation procedures (Geomin, target, and objectively refined target matrix), Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM), and a new set of procedures that, after fitting an unrestrictive model (i.e., EFA, BSEM), identify and retain only the relevant loadings to provide a parsimonious CFA solution (ECFA, BCFA). By means of an exhaustive Monte Carlo simulation study and a real data illustration, it is shown that CFA and BSEM are overly stiff and, consequently, do not appropriately recover the structure of slightly misspecified models. EFA usually provides the most accurate parameter estimates, although the rotation procedure choice is of major importance, especially depending on whether the latent factors are correlated or not. Finally, ECFA might be a sound option whenever an a priori structure cannot be hypothesized and the latent factors are correlated. Moreover, it is shown that the pattern of the results of a factor analytic technique can be somehow predicted based on its positioning in the confirmatory-exploratory continuum. Applied recommendations are given for the selection of the most appropriate technique under different representative scenarios by means of a detailed flowchart. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).