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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Google Scholar reports 895 citations of the Schmid Leiman, 1957, paper as of May 17, 2017.
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.
Actual S–L solutions may differ from (2) due to design choices that are described later.
S–L solutions with three or more levels are theoretically possible but are not considered in this paper.
The supplement also contains code that will reproduce all analyses that are reported in this article.
References
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.
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.
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.
Browne, M. W. (1968). A comparison of factor analytic techniques. Psychometrika, 33, 267–334.
Browne, M. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 111–150.
Cliff, N. (1966). Orthogonal rotation to congruence. Psychometrika, 31, 33–42.
Eckart, C., & Young, G. (1936). The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank. Psychometrika, 1, 211–218.
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.
Grayson, D., & Marsh, H. W. (1994). Identification with deficient rank loading matrices in confirmatory factor analysis: Multitrait-multimethod models. Psychometrika, 59, 121–134.
Harman, H., & Jones, W. (1966). Factor analysis by minimizing residuals (minres). Psychometrika, 31(3), 351–368.
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.
Holzinger, K. J., & Swineford, F. (1937). The bi-factor method. Psychometrika, 2, 41–54.
Horn, R. A., & Johnson, C. R. (2012). Matrix analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jennrich, R. I., & Bentler, P. M. (2011). Exploratory bi-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 74, 537–549.
Jennrich, R. L., & Bentler, P. M. (2012). Exploratory bi-factor analysis: The Oblique case. Psychometrika, 77, 442–454.
Jennrich, R. I., & Sampson, P. F. (1966). Rotation for simple loadings. Psychometrika, 31, 313–323.
Kristof, W. (1970). A theorem on the trace of certain matrix products and some applications. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 7, 515–530.
Mansolf, M., & Reise, S. P. (2016). Exploratory bifactor analysis: The Schmid–Leiman orthogonalization and Jennrich-Bentler analytic rotations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 698–717.
Mansolf, M., & Reise, S. P. (2017). When and why the second-order and bifactor models are distinguishable. Intelligence, 61, 120–129.
McDonald, R. P. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mulaik, S. A., & Quartetti, D. A. (1997). First order or higher order general factor? Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 193–211.
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/.
Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696.
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.
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.
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.
Rindskopf, D., & Rose, T. (1988). Some theory and applications of confirmatory second- order factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 51–67.
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.
Schmidt, J., & Leiman, J. M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 53–61.
Schönemann, P. H. (1966). A generalized solution of the orthogonal procrustes problem. Psychometrika, 31, 1–10.
Schönemann, P. H. (1985). On the formal differentiation of traces and determinants. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20, 113–139.
Thomson, G. H. (1939/1948). The factorial analysis of human ability. New York, New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press.
Tucker, L. R. (1940). The role of correlated factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 5, 141–152.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-017-9599-0