Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid Short Communication Using factor analysis to validate the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale in sample of science, technology, engineering and mathematics doctoral students Marsha Simon ⁎ , Youn-Jeng Choi The University of Alabama, United States ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Impostor syndrome Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale Confirmatory factor analysis ABSTRACT This study examined the factor structure of the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS). Previous researchers identified different factor structures when analyzing the instrument. Some have concluded that it contains one factor; others identified a two-factor solution while other researchers including the developers of the survey affirm a three-factor structure. This study used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the factor structure of the instrument using the three models proposed by researchers in the existing literature. The CFA revealed that a one-factor model with correlated residuals was the more parsimonious model. Based on these findings it can be concluded that a single factor model best fits the data in the study. 1. Introduction The term impostor syndrome introduced by Clance and Imes (1978) describes a perceived emotional experience of performance inadequacy despite evidence which contradicts this feeling. Individuals who exhibit impostor feelings doubt their abilities, attribute their success to outside factors and feel undeserving of their accolades (Clance & Imes, 1978; Harvey & Katz, 1986; Langford & Clance, 1993; Prata & Gietzen, 2007; Young, 2011). The most widely used instrument for identifying the impostor syndrome is the Clance impostor phenomenon scale (CIPS). Developed by Clance (1985), the 20-item scale examines specific attributes related to the impostor syndrome such as fear of being evaluated, fear of being unable to repeat success and fear of being less capable than others (Chrisman, Pieper, Clance, Holland, & Glickauf- Hughes, 1995). Each of the 20 items on the CIPS is scored on a five- point rating scale. The scores range from 1(not at all true) to 5 (very true). The scores for each item add up to produce a total score, the higher scores are indicative of impostor syndrome characteristics (Gibson-Beverly & Schwartz, 2008). Clance (1985) developed the scale to identify whether individuals had a fear of failure, discounted re- cognition from others, feared evaluation or were worried that previous successes could not be repeated (Langford & Clance, 1993). The initial exploratory factor analysis (EFA) conducted by Chrisman et al. (1995) on the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale, concluded that the instrument comprised three factors (luck, fake, and discount). In a recent article, exploring the factor structure of the German version of the instrument called the German-Language Clance Impostor Phenom- enon Scale (GCIPS), Brauer and Wolf (2016) also identified a three- factor structure. Despite EFA results indicating a three-factor structure, subsequent researchers tested the instrument via confirmatory factor analysis using a one-factor, two-factor and a three-factor model (Brauer & Wolf, 2016; French, Ullrich-French, & Follman, 2008; Jöstl, Bergsmann, Lüftenegger, Schober, & Spiel, 2012). French et al. (2008) who first conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on a 16 item-version of the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale suggested that two-factor model best explained the factor structure of the instrument. In their CFA of a translated 16-item version of CIPS in a sample of Austrian doctoral students, Jöstl et al. (2012) decided that a one-factor solution with correlations generated better goodness of fit statistics. Brauer and Wolf (2016) who also used a 16-item version of the instrument reasoned that a three-factor solution was a better fit than the other models that they examined. The purpose of this study was to examine the factor structure of the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS) using the three models proposed in the extant literature. 2. Methods 2.1. Participants We recruited participants for the study at a research institution in the southwestern United States. The 211 students in the sample http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.039 Received 26 May 2017; Received in revised form 25 September 2017; Accepted 27 September 2017 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: mesimon@crimson.ua.edu (M. Simon). Personality and Individual Differences 121 (2018) 173–175 0191-8869/ Published by Elsevier Ltd. MARK