Advertisement

Psychometrika

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 267–334 | Cite as

A comparison of factor analytic techniques

  • Michael W. Browne
Article

Abstract

Statistical properties of several methods for obtaining estimates of factor loadings and procedures for estimating the number of factors are compared by means of random sampling experiments. The effect of increasing the ratio of the number of observed variables to the number of factors, and of increasing sample size, is examined. A description is given of a procedure which makes use of the Bartlett decomposition of a Wishart matrix to generate random correlation matrices.

Keywords

Random Sampling Public Policy Factor Loading Statistical Theory Sampling Experiment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, T. W.An introduction to multivariate statistical analysis. New York: Wiley 1958.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, T. W., & Rubin, H. Statistical inference in factor analysis. In J. Neyman (Ed.),Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Volume V. Berkeley: Univer. California Press, 1956. Pp. 111–150.Google Scholar
  3. Appel, K. Solution of eigenvalue problems with approximately known eigenvectors.Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1962,5, 381.Google Scholar
  4. Bargmann, R. E.A study of independence and dependence in multivariate normal analysis. Chapel Hill: Univer. North Carolina, Institute of Statistics, 1957. (Mimeograph Series No. 186.)Google Scholar
  5. Bartlett, M. S. On the theory of statistical regression.Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1933,53, 260–283.Google Scholar
  6. Bartlett, M. S. Tests of significance in factor analysis.British Journal of Psychology, Statistical Section, 1950,3, 77–85.Google Scholar
  7. Bartlett, M. S. A note on the multiplying factors for various approximations.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 1954,16, 296–298.Google Scholar
  8. Bechtoldt, H. P. An empirical study of the factor analysis stability hypothesis.Psychometrika, 1961,26, 405–432.Google Scholar
  9. Box, G. E. P., & Muller, M. E. A note on the generation of random normal deviates.Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1958,29, 610–611.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, R. H. A comparison of the maximum determinant solution in factor analysis with various approximations. In R. E. Bargmann (Ed.),Representative ordering and selection of variables, Part B. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1962. Appendix B.Google Scholar
  11. Browne, M. W. On oblique Procrustes rotation, Research Bulletin 66-8. Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1966.Google Scholar
  12. Dwyer, P. S. The contribution of an orthogonal multiple factor solution to multiple correlation.Psychometrika, 1939,4, 163–171.Google Scholar
  13. Dwyer, P. S. The square root method and its use in correlation and regression.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1945,40, 493–503.Google Scholar
  14. Greenstadt, J. The determination of the characteristic roots of a matrix by the Jacobi method. In A. Ralston and H. S. Wilf (Eds.),Mathematical methods for digital computers. New York: Wiley, 1960. Pp. 84–92.Google Scholar
  15. Guttman, L. Multiple rectilinear prediction and the resolution into components.Psychometrika, 1940,5, 75–99.Google Scholar
  16. Guttman, L. Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis.Psychometrika, 1954,19, 149–161.Google Scholar
  17. Guttman, L. “Best possible” systematic estimates of communalities.Psychometrika, 1956,21, 273–285.Google Scholar
  18. Harman, H. H.Modern factor analysis. Chicago: Univer. Chicago Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  19. Harman, H. H., & Fukuda, Y. Resolution of the Heywood case in the minres solution.Psychometrika, 1966,31, in press.Google Scholar
  20. Harman, H. H., & Jones, W. H. Factor analysis by minimizing residuals (minres).Psychometrika, 1966,31, 351–368.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, C. W. Some Rao-Guttman relationships.Psychometrika, 1962,27, 247–263.Google Scholar
  22. Henrysson, S. The significance of factor loadings—Lawley's test examined by artificial samples.British Journal of Psychology, Statistical Section, 1950,3, 159–165.Google Scholar
  23. Hotelling, H. Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1933,24, 417–441, 498–520.Google Scholar
  24. Howe, W. G.Some contributions to factor analysis. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1955. (Report No. ORNL-1919.)Google Scholar
  25. Hull, T. E., & Dobell, A. R. Random number generators.Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Review, 1962,4, 230–254.Google Scholar
  26. Jöreskog, K. G. On the statistical treatment of residuals in factor analysis.Psychometrika, 1962,27, 335–354.Google Scholar
  27. Jöreskog, K. G.Statistical estimation in factor analysis. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1963.Google Scholar
  28. Jöreskog, K. G. Some contributions to maximum likelihood factor analysis. Research Bulletin 66-41. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1966.Google Scholar
  29. Kaiser, H. F. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1960,20, 141–151.Google Scholar
  30. Kaiser, H. F., & Dickman, K. Sample and population score matrices and sample correlation matrices from an arbitrary population correlation matrix.Psychometrika, 1962,27, 179–182.Google Scholar
  31. Kendall, M. G.The advanced theory of statistics, Volume II. London: Charles Griffin, & Co., Ltd., 1946.Google Scholar
  32. Kendall, M. G., & Stuart, A.The advanced theory of statistics, Volume II. London: Charles Griffin & Co., Ltd., 1961.Google Scholar
  33. Kshirsagar, A. M. Bartlett decomposition and Wishart distribution.Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1959,30, 239–241.Google Scholar
  34. Lawley, D. N. The estimation of factor loadings by the method of maximum likelihood.Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section A, 1940,60, 64–82.Google Scholar
  35. Lawley, D. N. Further investigations in factor estimation.Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section A, 1941,61, 176–185.Google Scholar
  36. Lawley, D. N. Tests of significance for the latent roots of covariance and correlation matrices.Biometrika, 1956,43, 128–136.Google Scholar
  37. Lawley, D. N., & Swanson, Z. Tests of significance in a factor analysis of artificial data.British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 1954,7, 75–79.Google Scholar
  38. Linn, R. L. A Monte Carlo approach to the number of factors problem. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Illinois, 1965.Google Scholar
  39. Lord, F. M. A study of speed factors in tests and academic grades.Psychometrika, 1956,21, 31–50.Google Scholar
  40. Maxwell, A. E. A comparative study of some factor analytic techniques. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Edinburgh, 1957.Google Scholar
  41. McNemar, Q. On the sampling error of factor loadings.Psychometrika, 1941,6, 141–152.Google Scholar
  42. McNemar, Q. On the number of factors.Psychometrika, 1942,7, 9–18.Google Scholar
  43. Mosier, C. I. Influence of chance error on simple structure.Psychometrika, 1939,4, 33–44. (a)Google Scholar
  44. Mosier, C. I. Determining a simple structure when loadings for certain tests are known.Psychometrika, 1939,4, 149–162. (b)Google Scholar
  45. Muller, M. E. A comparison of methods for generating normal deviates on digital computers.Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1959,6, 376–383.Google Scholar
  46. Odell, P. L., & Feiveson, A. H. A numerical procedure to generate a sample covariance matrix.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1966,61, 199–203.Google Scholar
  47. Rao, C. R. Estimation and tests of significance in factor analysis.Psychometrika, 1955,20, 93–111.Google Scholar
  48. Saunders, D. R. Further implications of Mundy-Castle's correlations between EEG and Wechsler-Bellevue variables.Journal of the National Institute for Personnel Research, Johannesburg, 1960,8, 91–101.Google Scholar
  49. Sokal, R. R. A comparison of five tests for completeness of factor extraction.Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, 1959,62, 141–152.Google Scholar
  50. Taussky, O., & Todd, J. Generation and testing of pseudo random numbers. In H. A. Meycr (Ed.),Symposium on Monte Carlo methods. New York: Wiley, 1956. Pp. 15–28.Google Scholar
  51. Teichroew, D., & Sitgreaves, R. Computation of an empirical sampling distribution for the W classification statistic. In H. Solomon (Ed.),Studies in item analysis and prediction. Stanford: Stanford Univer. Press, 1961, Pp. 252–275.Google Scholar
  52. Thomson, G. H. Hotelling's method modified to give Spearman's g.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1934,25, 366–374.Google Scholar
  53. Thurstone, L. L.Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: Univer. Chicago Press, 1947.Google Scholar
  54. Whittle, P. On principal components and least square methods of factor analysis.Skandinavisk Aktuarietidskrift, 1952,35, 223–239.Google Scholar
  55. Wijsman, R. A. Applications of a certain representation of the Wishart matrix.Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1959,30, 597–601.Google Scholar
  56. Wold, H. Some artificial experiments in factor analysis. InUppsala Symposium on psychological factor analysis. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1953. Pp. 43–64. (Nordisk Psykilogi's Monograph Series No. 3.)Google Scholar
  57. Wrigley, C. The effect upon the communalities of changing the estimate of the number of factors.British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 1959,12, 34–54.Google Scholar
  58. Wrigley, C., & Neuhaus, J. O. The use of an electronic computer in principal axes factor analysis.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1955,46, 31–41.Google Scholar
  59. Young, G. Maximum likelihood estimation and factor analysis.Psychometrika, 1941,6, 49–53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychometric Society 1968

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael W. Browne
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute for Personnel ResearchSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations