Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 396–402 | Cite as

SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test

  • Brian P. O’connorEmail author


Popular statistical software packages do not have the proper procedures for determining the number of components in factor and principal components analyses. Parallel analysis and Velicer’s minimum average partial (MAP) test are validated procedures, recommended widely by statisticians. However, many researchers continue to use alternative, simpler, but flawed procedures, such as the eigenvaluesgreater-than-one rule. Use of the proper procedures might be increased if these procedures could be conducted within familiar software environments. This paper describes brief and efficient programs for using SPSS and SAS to conduct parallel analyses and the MAP test.


Behavior Research Method Parallel Analysis Random Data Proper Procedure Minimum Average Partial 
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.

Supplementary material (20 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 340 KB.


  1. Brysbaert, M. (1991). Algorithms for randomness in the behavioral sciences: A tutorial.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,23, 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cattell, R. B., &Vogelmann, S. (1977). A comprehensive trial of the scree and KG criteria for determining the number of factors.Multivariate Behavioral Research,12, 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cliff, N. (1988). The eigenvalues-greater-than-one rule and the reliability of components.Psychological Bulletin,103, 276–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coovert, M. D., &McNelis, K. (1988). Determining the number of common factors in factor analysis: A review and program.Educational & Psychological Measurement,48, 687–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cota, A. A., Longman, R. S., Holden, R. R., &Fekken, G. C. (1993). Comparing different methods for implementing parallel analysis: A practical index of accuracy.Educational & Psychological Measurement,53, 865–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cota, A. A., Longman, R. S., Holden, R. R., Fekken, G. C., &Xinaris, S. (1993). Interpolating 95th percentile eigenvalues from random data: An empirical example.Educational & Psychological Measurement,53, 585–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crawford, C. B., &Koopman, P. (1979). Inter-rater reliability of scree test and mean square ratio test of number of factors.Perceptual & Motor Skills,49, 223–226.Google Scholar
  8. Floyd, F. J., &Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments.Psychological Assessment,7, 286–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glorfeld, L. W. (1995). An improvement on Horn’s parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of factors to retain.Educational & Psychological Measurement,55, 377–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gorsuch, R. L. (1997). Exploratory factor analysis: Its role in item analysis.Journal of Personality Assessment,68, 532–560.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Harman, H. H. (1967).Modern factor analysis (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.Psychometrika,30, 179–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaufman, J. D., &Dunlap, W. P. (2000). Determining the number of factors to retain: A Windows-based FORTRAN-IMSL program for parallel analysis.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,32, 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Longman, R. S., Cota, A. A., Holden, R. R., &Fekken, G. C. (1989). PAM: A double-precision FORTRAN routine for the parallel analysis method in principal components analysis.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,21, 477–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Merenda, P. F. (1997). A guide to the proper use of factor analysis in the conduct and reporting of research: Pitfalls to avoid.Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development,30, 156–164.Google Scholar
  16. Onghena, P. (1993). A theoretical and empirical comparison of mainframe, microcomputer, and pocket calculator pseudorandom number generators.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,25, 384–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Reddon, J. R. (1985). MAPF and MAPS: Subroutines for the number of principal components.Applied Psychological Measurement,9, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Streiner, D. L. (1998). Factors affecting reliability of interpretations of scree plots.Psychological Reports,83, 687–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tinsley, H. E. A., &Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research.Journal of Counseling Psychology,34, 414–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Turner, N. E. (1998). The effect of common variance and structure on random data eigenvalues: Implications for the accuracy of parallel analysis.Educational & Psychological Measurement,58, 541–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations.Psychometrika,41, 321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wood, J. M., Tataryn, D. J., &Gorsuch, R. L. (1996). Effects of under- and overextraction on principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation.Psychological Methods,1, 354–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zwick, W. R., &Velicer, W. F. (1982). Factors influencing four rules for determining the number of components to retain.Multivariate Behavioral Research,17, 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zwick, W. R., &Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain.Psychological Bulletin,99, 432–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyLakehead UniversityThunder BayCanada

Personalised recommendations