Direct Schmid–Leiman Transformations and Rank-Deficient Loadings Matrices

Psychometrika volume 83, pages858–870(2018)Cite this article

Abstract

The Schmid–Leiman (S–L; Psychometrika 22: 53–61, 1957) transformation is a popular method for conducting exploratory bifactor analysis that has been used in hundreds of studies of individual differences variables. To perform a two-level S–L transformation, it is generally believed that two separate factor analyses are required: a first-level analysis in which k obliquely rotated factors are extracted from an observed-variable correlation matrix, and a second-level analysis in which a general factor is extracted from the correlations of the first-level factors. In this article, I demonstrate that the S–L loadings matrix is necessarily rank deficient. I then show how this feature of the S–L transformation can be used to obtain a direct S–L solution from an unrotated first-level factor structure. Next, I reanalyze two examples from Mansolf and Reise (Multivar Behav Res 51: 698–717, 2016) to illustrate the utility of ‘best-fitting’ S–L rotations when gauging the ability of hierarchical factor models to recover known bifactor structures. Finally, I show how to compute direct bifactor solutions for non-hierarchical bifactor structures. An online supplement includes R code to reproduce all of the analyses that are reported in the article.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Google Scholar reports 895 citations of the Schmid Leiman, 1957, paper as of May 17, 2017.

  2. 2.

    Although the restricted bifactor model that is described in this paper is typically attributed to Schmid & Leiman, 1957, the underlying rationale for the two-level S–L transformation had been discussed previously by Thompson, (1939/1948), Thurstone, (1947), and others. Wherry (1959) also claimed to have independently derived the transformation with the assistance of B. J. Winer.

  3. 3.

    Actual S–L solutions may differ from (2) due to design choices that are described later.

  4. 4.

    S–L solutions with three or more levels are theoretically possible but are not considered in this paper.

  5. 5.

    The supplement also contains code that will reproduce all analyses that are reported in this article.

References

  1. Bandalos, D. L., & Kopp, J. P. (2013). The utility of exploratory bi-factor rotations in scale construction. In Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington D.C.

  2. Bernaards, C. A., & Jennrich, R. I. (2005). Gradient projection algorithms and software for arbitrary rotation criteria in factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 676–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Briggs, N. E., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Recovery of weak common factors by maximum likelihood and ordinary least squares estimation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 25–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Browne, M. W. (1968). A comparison of factor analytic techniques. Psychometrika, 33, 267–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Browne, M. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 111–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cliff, N. (1966). Orthogonal rotation to congruence. Psychometrika, 31, 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Eckart, C., & Young, G. (1936). The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank. Psychometrika, 1, 211–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gignac, G. E. (2016). The higher-order model imposes a proportionality constraint: That is why the bifactor model tends to fit better. Intelligence, 55, 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Grayson, D., & Marsh, H. W. (1994). Identification with deficient rank loading matrices in confirmatory factor analysis: Multitrait-multimethod models. Psychometrika, 59, 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Harman, H., & Jones, W. (1966). Factor analysis by minimizing residuals (minres). Psychometrika, 31(3), 351–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hendrickson, A. E., & White, P. O. (1966). A method for the rotation of higher-order factors. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 19, 97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Holzinger, K. J., & Swineford, F. (1937). The bi-factor method. Psychometrika, 2, 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Horn, R. A., & Johnson, C. R. (2012). Matrix analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jennrich, R. I., & Bentler, P. M. (2011). Exploratory bi-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 74, 537–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jennrich, R. L., & Bentler, P. M. (2012). Exploratory bi-factor analysis: The Oblique case. Psychometrika, 77, 442–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jennrich, R. I., & Sampson, P. F. (1966). Rotation for simple loadings. Psychometrika, 31, 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kristof, W. (1970). A theorem on the trace of certain matrix products and some applications. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 7, 515–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mansolf, M., & Reise, S. P. (2016). Exploratory bifactor analysis: The Schmid–Leiman orthogonalization and Jennrich-Bentler analytic rotations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 698–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mansolf, M., & Reise, S. P. (2017). When and why the second-order and bifactor models are distinguishable. Intelligence, 61, 120–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McDonald, R. P. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mulaik, S. A., & Quartetti, D. A. (1997). First order or higher order general factor? Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 193–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.

  23. Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Reise, S. P., Moore, T. M., & Haviland, M. G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 544–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Reise, S., Moore, T., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2011). Target rotations and assessing the impact of model violations on the parameters of unidimensional item response theory models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 684–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Revelle, W. (2017). psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Version=1.7.5.

  27. Rindskopf, D., & Rose, T. (1988). Some theory and applications of confirmatory second- order factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Schmiedek, F., & Li, S.-C. (2004). Toward an alternative representation for disentangling age-associated differences in general and specific cognitive abilities. Psychology and Aging, 19, 40–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Schmidt, J., & Leiman, J. M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schönemann, P. H. (1966). A generalized solution of the orthogonal procrustes problem. Psychometrika, 31, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schönemann, P. H. (1985). On the formal differentiation of traces and determinants. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20, 113–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Thomson, G. H. (1939/1948). The factorial analysis of human ability. New York, New York: Houghton Mifflin.

  33. Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tucker, L. R. (1940). The role of correlated factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 5, 141–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yung, Y. F., Thissen, D., & McLeod, L. D. (1999). On the relationship between the higher-order factor model and the hierarchical factor model. Psychometrika, 64, 113–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Niels G. Waller

Authors
  1. Niels G. Waller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niels G. Waller.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 83 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Waller, N.G. Direct Schmid–Leiman Transformations and Rank-Deficient Loadings Matrices. Psychometrika 83, 858–870 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-017-9599-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • bifactor
  • Schmid Leiman
  • hierarchical factor analysis