Psychometrika

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 1–14 | Cite as

Alpha factor analysis

  • Henry F. Kaiser
  • John Caffrey
Article

Abstract

A distinction is made between statistical inference and psychometric inference in factor analysis. After reviewing Rao's canonical factor analysis (CFA), a fundamental statistical method of factoring, a new method of factor analysis based upon the psychometric concept of generalizability is described. This new procedure (alpha factor analysis, AFA) determines factors which have maximum generalizability in the Kuder-Richardson, or alpha, sense. The two methods, CFA and AFA, each have the important property of giving the same factors regardless of the units of measurement of the observable variables. In determining factors, the principal distinction between the two methods is that CFA operates in the metric of the unique parts of the observable variables while AFA operates in the metric of the common (“communality”) parts.

On the other hand, the two methods are substantially different as to how they establish the number of factors. CFA answers this crucial question with a statistical test of significance while AFA retains only those alpha factors with positive generalizability. This difference is discussed at some length. A brief outline of a computer program for AFA is described and an example of the application of AFA is given.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Anderson, T. W. and Rubin, H. Statistical inference in factor analysis.Proc. third Berkeley Symp. math. Statist. and Prob., 1956,5, 11–50.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bargmann, R. A study of independence and dependence in multivariate normal analysis. Institute of Statistics, Univ. North Carolina, Mimeographed Series No. 186, 1957.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Caffrey, J. Algorithm 66. INVRS.Communications of the ACM, 1961,4, 322.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.Psychometrika, 1951,16, 297–334.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Cronbach, L. J., Rajaratnam, N., and Gleser, G. C. Theory of generalizability: a liberalization of reliability theory.Brit. J. statist. Psychol., 1963,16, 137–163.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Cronbach, L. J. and Hartmann, W. A note on negative reliabilities.Educ. psychol. Measmt, 1954,14, 342–346.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Dickman, K. and Kaiser, H. F. Program for inverting a Gramian matrix.Educ. psychol. Measmt, 1961,21, 721–727.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Guttman, L. A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability.Psychometrika, 1945,10, 255–282.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Guttman, L. “Best possible” systematic estimates of communalities.Psychometrika, 1956,21, 273–286.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Guttman, L. To what extent can communalities reduce rank?Psychometrika, 1958,23, 297–308.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Harris, C. W. Some Rao-Guttman relationships.Psychometrika, 1962,27, 247–263.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Holzinger, K. J. and Harman, H.Factor analysis. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1941.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Hotelling, H. Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components.J. educ. Psychol., 1933,24, 417–441, 498–520.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Hoyt, C. Test reliability estimated by analysis of variance.Psychometrika, 1941,6, 153–160.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Jackson, R. W. and Ferguson, G. A. Studies on the reliability of tests. Bulletin No. 12, Dept. of Educ. Res., Univ. Toronto, 1941.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Kaiser, H. F. The varimax method of factor analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. Calif., 1956.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Kaiser, H. F. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis.Psychometrika, 1958,23, 187–200.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Kaiser, H. F. The application of electronic computers in factor analysis.Educ. psychol. Measmt, 1960,20, 141–151.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Kaiser, H. F. Comments on communalities and the number of factors. Unpublished manuscript, 1960.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Kuder, G. F. and Richardson, M. W. The theory of the estimation of test reliability.Psychometrika, 1937,2, 151–160.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Lawley, D. N. The estimation of factor loadings by the method of maximum likelihood.Proc. roy. Soc. Edinburgh, 1940,60, 64–82.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Lord, F. M. Some relations between Guttman's principal components of scale analysis and other psychometric theory.Psychometrika, 1958,23, 291–296.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Rao, C. R. Estimation and tests of significance in factor analysis.Psychometrika, 1955,20, 93–111.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Thurstone, L. L.Multiple-factor analysis. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1947.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Tryon, R. C. Reliability and behavior domain validity: Reformulation and historical critique.Psychol. Bull., 1957,54, 229–249.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychometric Society 1965

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry F. Kaiser
    • 1
  • John Caffrey
    • 2
  1. 1.University of WisconsinUSA
  2. 2.System Development CorporationUSA

Personalised recommendations