This paper advances an argument in favor of conducting and reporting confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) on existing and previously validated scales and reporting the findings of those analyses in published research. Previous evidence of scale validity does not necessarily ensure validity in subsequent uses. Instead, scale invariance is best viewed as an empirical question. The case is made that CFA facilitates rather than hinders cross-studies comparisons, and that replication is good scientific practice. Reporting the outcomes of CFA on existing scales provides useful information that facilities knowledge generation and can minimize costly scientific dead-ends. © 2006, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.