Download as ODP, PPTX
![3
1. Beavers et al. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory
factor analysis in educational research. [Online]
2. Fabrigar et al. (1999).
Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological
research. [Online]
3. Howitt & Cramer (2014).
Ch 31: Factor analysis: Simplifying complex data.
[Textbook/eReserve]
4. Streiner (1994). Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor
analysis. [Online]
5. Tabachnick & Fidell (2007).
Principal components and factor analysis. [eReserve]
6. Williams, Brown, & Osman (2012).
Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. [Online]
7. Wikiversity (2017). Exploratory factor analysis: Glossary. [Online]
Readings](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/exploratory-factor-analysis-1206420594617863-4/85/Exploratory-factor-analysis-3-320.jpg)
Uploaded byJames Neill
Exploratory factor analysis
The document is a lecture on exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in psychology, detailing its purpose in identifying clusters of inter-correlated variables and aiding in theory development and data reduction. It presents historical context, examples of EFA applications, and outlines the steps to carry out the analysis. Additionally, it discusses the assumptions necessary for conducting EFA and differentiates between exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.
More Related Content
Similar to Exploratory factor analysis
Exploratory factor analysis
- 1. Lecture 5 Survey Research& Design in Psychology James Neill, 2017 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Exploratory Factor Analysis Image source:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pleiades_large.jpg
- 2. 2 Overview 1. Readings 2. Aboutfactor analysis 3. EFA example 1: Facial features 4. EFA example 2: Classroom behaviour 5. Steps / process 6. EFA example 3: Condom use 7. Summary
- 3. 3 1. Beavers etal. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. [Online] 2. Fabrigar et al. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. [Online] 3. Howitt & Cramer (2014). Ch 31: Factor analysis: Simplifying complex data. [Textbook/eReserve] 4. Streiner (1994). Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysis. [Online] 5. Tabachnick & Fidell (2007). Principal components and factor analysis. [eReserve] 6. Williams, Brown, & Osman (2012). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. [Online] 7. Wikiversity (2017). Exploratory factor analysis: Glossary. [Online] Readings
- 4.
- 5. 5 About factor analysis 1.What is it? 2. Purposes 3. History 4. Types 5. Models
- 6. 6 Astronomical metaphor Universe =Topic e.g., Time management Galaxies = Factors e.g., Procrastination, Planning, Efficiency etc. Solar systems = Items e.g., “I get easily distracted.” Factor analysis helps to identify the relational structure amongst a set of variables. Image source:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AEarth's_Location_in_the_Universe_SMALLER_(JPEG).jpg
- 7. 7 Conceptual model offactor analysis FA uses correlations among many variables to sort related variables into clusters called “factors”. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 The variance of several variables may be largely explained by a smaller number of underlying clusters (factors), with each factor consisting of several variables.
- 8. 8 Factor analysis... • isused to identify clusters of inter-correlated variables (called 'factors'). • is a family of multivariate statistical techniques for examining correlations amongst variables.
- 9. 9 Purposes Two main applicationsof factor analytic techniques: 1. Theory development: Detect and test structure in the relationships between variables, identify factors, and classify variables. 2. Data reduction: Reduce the number of variables down to a smaller number of factors.
- 10. 10 Purposes: Theory development •FA is used to test theoretical models by investigating the underlying correlational pattern shared by the variables. • The goal is to address a theoretical question such as: –How many personality factors are there? (And what are they?) –Is intelligence general or multiple?
- 11. 11 How many dimensionsof personality are there – and what are they? Example: Personality “Big 5”? • Neuroticism • Extraversion • Agreeableness • Openness • Conscientiousness Eysenck's 3? • Extraversion • Neuroticism • Psychoticism e.g. FA can help to decide between 3 or 5 factor personality models:
- 12. 12 Is intelligence betterdescribed as: • one global factor (g) or • several specific factors (e.g., verbal, spatial, mathematical, social, kinaesthetic)? Example: Intelligence FA can help decide which model is best supported by evidence.
- 13. 13 Purposes: Data reduction •In psychometric instrument development, FA is used to simplify the data structure by identifying a smaller number of underlying factors. • FA then helps to identify items for improvement or removal because they are: • redundant, or • unclear/irrelevant, or • complex • FA informs the calculation of factor scores, (composite scores which combine a respondent's scores for several related items).
- 14. 14 History of factoranalysis (Goldberg & Digman, 1994, cited in Fehriinger, 2004) • Invented by Pearson (1901) and further developed by Spearman (1904) • Usage hampered by onerousness of hand calculation • Since the advent of computers, usage has thrived, especially for: – Theory e.g., determining the structure of psychological constructs such as personality or intelligence – Practice e.g., development of 10,000s+ of psychological screening & measurement tests
- 15. 15 There are twomain types of FA: EFA = Exploratory Factor Analysis • explores & summarises underlying correlational structure for a data set CFA = Confirmatory Factor Analysis • tests the correlational structure of a data set against a hypothesised structure and rates the “goodness of fit” Types of factor analysis
- 16. 16 This (introductory) lecturefocuses on Exploratory Factor Analysis (recommended for undergraduate level). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (and Structural Equation Modeling) is generally preferred, but is more advanced, so is recommended for graduate/professional level. EFA vs. CFA
- 17. 17 Factor 1 Factor2 Factor 3 Simple conceptual model • e.g., 12 variables which 'tap' or represent 3 underlying factors • Factors consist of relatively homogeneous/similar variables. Factors Items/Variable s
- 18. 18 Eysenck’s 3 personalityfactors e.g., 12 items which measure 3 underlying dimensions of personality Simple conceptual model: Example Extraversion/ introversion Neuroticism Psychoticism talkative shy sociable fun anxious gloomy relaxed tense unconventional nurturingharshloner Factors Items/Variable s
- 19. 19 Item 1 Simple conceptualmodel Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Each measurement item primarily loads onto only one factor.
- 20. 20 Item 1 Complex conceptualmodel Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Each measurement item may load onto more than one factor.
- 21. 21 Nine factors? (independent items) One factor? Threefactors? Exploratory factor analysis: Key questions Q1: How many factors? (and what construct does each factor represent?) Q2: To which factor(s) does each item best belong?
- 22. 22 EFA example 1: Essentialfacial features
- 23. 23 What are the essentialfacial features for expression and communication? (Ivancevic et al., 2003) Example: Essential facial features
- 24. 24 • The importanceof 20 specific facial features in facial recognition was measured with 80 facial images • Based on EFA, 6 factors were identified, representing 76% of the total variability in facial recognition (Ivancevic et al., 2003). In order of importance: – upper-lip – eyebrow-position – nose-width – eye-position – eye/eyebrow-length – face-width Example: Essential facial features
- 25. 25 EFA example 2: Classroombehaviour
- 26. 26 • 15 classroombehaviours of high- school children were rated by teachers using a 5-point Likert scale. • Task: Identify groups of variables (behaviours) that are strongly inter-related and represent underlying factors. Example factor analysis: Classroom behaviour Francis (2007) - based on the Victorian Quality Schools Project
- 27.
- 28. 28 Classroom behaviour items 1.Cannot concentrate ↔ can concentrate 2. Curious & enquiring ↔ little curiousity 3. Perseveres ↔ lacks perseverance 4. Irritable ↔ even-tempered 5. Easily excited ↔ not easily excited 6. Patient ↔ demanding 7. Easily upset ↔ contented
- 29. 29 8. Control ↔no control 9. Relates warmly to others ↔ disruptive 10.Persistent ↔ frustrated 11.Difficult ↔ easy 12.Restless ↔ relaxed 13.Lively ↔ settled 14.Purposeful ↔ aimless 15.Cooperative ↔ disputes Classroom behaviour items
- 30. 30 Example: Classroom behaviour •The results are embedded in subsequent slides • See also: Tutorial 03: Psychometrics: EFA Exercise 2: Classroom behaviour – https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Survey_research_and_design_in_psychology/Tutorials/Psychometrics/Exploratory_factor_analysis#Exercise_2:_Classroom_behaviour
- 31.
- 32. 32 Steps / process 1.Test assumptions 2. Select extraction method 3. Determine # of factors (Eigen Values, scree plot, % variance explained) 4. Select items (check factor loadings to identify which items belong best in which factor; drop items one by one; repeat) 5. Name and define factors 6. Examine correlations amongst factors 7. Analyse internal reliability 8. Compute composite scores
- 33. 33 Garbage. In. → Garbage.Out … screen the data ...
- 34. 34 Assumptions 1. Theory 2. Samplesize 3. Levels of measurement 4. Normality 5. Linearity 6. Outliers 7. Factorability
- 35. 35 Assumption testing: Theory EFA shouldbe driven by a theoretically-driven research question e.g., “How many distinct dimensions (factors) of X are there, what are they, and which items best represent these factors?”
- 36. 36 Assumption testing: Sample size •FA is “data hungry” • Some guidelines: –Minimum: N > 5 cases per variable e.g., 20 variables, should have > 100 cases (1:5) –Ideal: N > 20 cases per variable e.g., 20 variables, ideally have > 400 cases (1:20) –Total: N > 200 preferable
- 37. 37 Assumption testing: Samplesize Fabrigar et al. (1999)
- 38. 38 Assumption testing: Sample size Comreyand Lee's (1992) guidelines: 50 = very poor 100 = poor 200 = fair 300 = good 500 = very good 1000+ = excellent
- 39. 39 Assumption testing: Samplesize Fabrigar et al. (1999)
- 40. 40 Assumption testing: Level ofmeasurement • All variables must be suitable for Pearson product-moment correlational analysis i.e., the variables should have interval or ratio levels of measurement.
- 41. 41 Assumption testing: Normality • FAis generally robust to minor violation of assumptions of normality. • If the variables are normally distributed then the solution is enhanced.
- 42. 42 Assumption testing: Outliers • FAis sensitive to outlying (unusual) cases, including: –Bivariate outliers (e.g., check scatterplots) –Multivariate outliers (e.g., Mahalanobis’ distance) • Identify outliers, then remove or recode if they are influential
- 43. 43 Assumption testing: Linearity • FAis based on correlations between variables, so it is also important to check there are linear relations amongst the variables (i.e., check scatterplots)
- 44. 44 Assumption testing: Factorability Check thefactorability of the correlation matrix (i.e., how suitable is the data for factor analysis?) by one or more of the following methods: • Correlation matrix correlations > .3? • Anti-image matrix diagonals > .5? • Measures of sampling adequacy (MSAs)? – Bartlett’s sig.? – KMO > .5 or .6?
- 45. 45 Assumption testing: Factorability (Correlations) CorrelationMatrix 1.000 .717 .751 .554 .429 .717 1.000 .826 .472 .262 .751 .826 1.000 .507 .311 .554 .472 .507 1.000 .610 .429 .262 .311 .610 1.000 CONCENTRATES CURIOUS PERSEVERES EVEN-TEMPERED PLACID Correlation CONCEN TRATES CURIOUS PERSEV ERES EVEN-TE MPERED PLACID Are there SEVERAL correlations over .3? If so, proceed with EFA. Takes some effort with a large number of variables, but is the most 'accurate'
- 46. 46 • Examine thediagonal values on the anti-image correlation matrix • Variables with AI correlations less than .5 should be noted for possible exclusion from the analysis as they appear to lack sufficient correlation with other variables • Medium amount of effort, and reasonably accurate Assumption testing: Factorability: Anti-image correlation matrix
- 47. 47 Anti-image correlation matrix Makesure to look at the anti-image CORRELATION (not the AI COVARIANCE matrix
- 48. 48 • The correlationmatrix is factorable if the global indicators: –Bartlett’s test of sphericity is significant and/or –Kaiser-Mayer Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy > .5 or .6 • Quickest method, but least reliable Assumption testing: Factorability: Measures of sampling adequacy
- 49. 49 Assumption testing: Factorability > .5or .6 Significant p < .05
- 50. 50 Summary: Measures of samplingadequacy Use one or more of the following to help determine the factorability of a correlation matrix: 1. Several correlations > .3? 2. Anti-image correlation matrix diagonals > .5? 3. Bartlett’s test significant? 4. KMO > .5 to .6? (depends on whose rule of thumb)
- 51. 51 Extraction method Two mainapproaches to EFA: • Analyses shared variance: Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) • Analyses all variance: Principal Components (PC)
- 52. 52 Principal axis factoring(PAF) • Designed to uncover the structure underlying the set of original variables • More theoretical • Analyses only common (shared) variance (i.e., leaves out variance that unique to each measurement item)
- 53. 53 Principal components (PC) •More commonly used • More practical • Reduces many variables down to a smaller number of factor scores. These scores can be used in other analyses e.g., for hypothesis testing. • Analyses all the variance in each variable (common and unique)
- 54. 54 Variance components Total varianceof a variable Common variance (shared with other variables) Unique variance (not shared with other variables) PAF PC
- 55. 55 • Often thereis little practical difference in the solutions for the two procedures. • If unsure, check your data using both PC and PAF. • If you get different solutions for the two methods, try to work out why and decide on which solution is more appropriate PC vs. PAF
- 56. 56 Explained variance • Agood factor solution is one that explains the most overall variance with the fewest factors • Realistically, researchers are happy with 50 to 75% of the variance explained
- 57. 57 Explained variance 3 factorsexplain 73.5% of the variance in the 15 classroom behaviour items – very useful!
- 58. 58 Communalities • Each variablehas a communality = the proportion of the variable's variance explained by the extracted factors • Can ranges between 0 (no variance explained) and 1 (all variance explained)
- 59. 59 • High communalities(> .5): Extracted factors explain most of the variance in the variable • Low communalities (< .5): A variable has considerable variance unexplained by the extracted factors –Consider extracting more factors to explain more variance or removing this variable from the EFA Communalities
- 60. 60 Communalities - 2 >.5 for all variables
- 61. 61 Eigen values (EVs) •Each variable adds to the overall variance to be explained. • Each factor tries to explain as much of the items' variance as possible. • An EV indicates the amount of overall variance that each factor accounts for. • Rule of thumb: Eigen values over 1 are ‘stable’ (Kaiser's criterion). • EVs for successive factors have lower values. • EVs can be usefully expressed as %s. • The total of all EVs is the number of variables or 100%.
- 62. 62 Explained variance The EVsranged between 9.36 and 0.15. Two factors satisfy Kaiser's criterion (EVs > 1) but the third EV is .93 (and turns out to be a useful factor). There is a drop to the 4th factor's EV. The total of these EVs is 15. There are 15 measurement items. If 15 factors are extracted, 100% of the variance is explained.
- 63. 63 An EFA of20 variables is conducted. Results indicate that four factors explain 60% of the variance. What do the EVs of factors 5 to 20 add up to? a. impossible to tell b. 8 c. 12 d. 20 Practice quiz question: EVs and percentage of variance explained All EVs add up to 20 (100%). Four factors explain 60% which is 12 out of 20 EVs. So Factors 5 to 20 explain the other 40% which is 8 out of 20 EVs.
- 64. 64 Scree plot • Acumulative line graph of eigen values (EVs). • Depicts amount of variance explained by each factor. –1st factor explains the most variance. –Last factor explains least amount of variance. • To determine the optimal # of factors: Look for where additional factors fail to add appreciably to the cumulative explained variance.
- 65. 65 Scree plot Look forthe 'elbow' Here it indicates 2 or 3 factors
- 66. 66 Scree plot Scree Plot ComponentNumber 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Eigenvalue 10 8 6 4 2 0 Scree plot In this case, examine the following solutions: ● 3 factors? ● 5 factors? ● 8 factors?
- 67. 67 How many factors? Asubjective decision ... the goal is to explain maximum variance using fewest factors. Take into account: 1. Theory – what is predicted/expected? 2. Eigen Values > 1? (Kaiser’s criterion) 3. Scree plot – where does it drop off? 4. Interpretability of last factor? 5. Try several different solutions? (consider EFA type, rotation, # of factors) 6. Factors must be able to be meaningfully interpreted and make theoretical sense.
- 68. 68 How many factors? •Aim for 50 to 75% of variance explained by 1/4 to 1/3 as many factors as variables. • Stop extracting factors when they no longer represent useful/meaningful clusters of variables. • Keep checking/clarifying the meaning of each factor – make sure to examine the wording of each item.
- 69. 69 • Factor loadings(FLs) indicate the relative importance of each item to each factor. • A factor matrix shows variables in rows and factors in columns. • Factors are weighted combinations of variables. Factor loading matrix
- 70. 70 • In theinitial solution, each factor “selfishly” grabs maximum unexplained variance. • 1st factor extracted: – Best possible line of best fit through the original variables. – Seeks to explain lion's share of all variance – Gives the best single factor summary of the variance in the whole set of items – All variables will tend to load strongly on the 1st factor. Initial solution - Unrotated factor structure
- 71. 71 • Each subsequentfactor tries to explain the maximum amount of remaining unexplained variance. • Second factor is orthogonal to first factor - seeks to maximise its own Eigen Value (i.e., tries to gobble up as much of the remaining unexplained variance as possible), etc. Initial solution - Unrotated factor structure
- 72. 72 Vectors (Lines ofbest fit)
- 73. 73 Factor rotation • Howeveruntil the factor loadings are rotated, they are difficult to interpret. – Seldom see a simple unrotated factor structure – Many variables will load on two or more factors • Rotation of the factor loading matrix helps to find a more interpretable factor structure.
- 74. 74 Types of factorrotation Orthogonal (SPSS Varimax) minimises factor covariation, produces factors which are uncorrelated Oblique (SPSS Oblimin) allows factors to covary, allows correlations between factors
- 75. 75 Orthogonal vs. obliquerotations • Theory? (expecting related or unrelated factors?) • If in doubt, try orthogonal and oblique rotations and assess which set of factor loadings are most interpretable? (i.e., which makes most sense?) • Check correlations between factors (available via oblique solution): – If > ~.3 then with oblique rotation (> 10% shared variance between factors)
- 76. 76 Interpretability • Avoid beingguided by factor loadings only – think carefully - be guided by theory and common sense in selecting the final factor structure. • You must be able to understand and interpret each factor that you choose to extract.
- 77. 77 Interpretability • Watch outfor ‘seeing what you want to see’ when evidence might suggest a different, better solution. • There may be more than one good solution! e.g., in personality –2 factor model –5 factor model –16 factor model
- 78. 78 Factor loadings &item selection A factor structure is most interpretable when: 1. Each variable loads strongly (> +.40) on only one factor 2. Each factor has 3 or more strong loadings; more strongly loading variables = greater reliability 3. Most loadings are either high (towards -1 or +1) or low (towards 0) (i.e., there few intermediate values). This will give a ‘simple’ factor structure.
- 79. 79 Rotatedfactormatrix-PC Varimax Rotated Component Matrixa .861.158 .288 .858 .310 .806 .279 .325 .778 .373 .237 .770 .376 .312 .863 .203 .259 .843 .223 .422 .756 .295 .234 .648 .526 .398 .593 .510 .328 .155 .797 .268 .286 .748 .362 .258 .724 .240 .530 .662 .405 .396 .622 PERSEVERES CURIOUS PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITY CONCENTRATES SUSTAINED ATTENTION PLACID CALM RELAXED COMPLIANT SELF-CONTROLLED RELATES-WARMLY CONTENTED COOPERATIVE EVEN-TEMPERED COMMUNICATIVE 1 2 3 Component Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.a.
- 80. 80 Pattern Matrixa .920 .153 .845 .784-.108 .682 -.338 .596 -.192 -.168 -.938 -.933 .171 -.839 -.831 -.201 -.788 -.181 -.902 -.131 -.841 -.314 -.686 .471 -.521 .400 -.209 -.433 RELATES-WARMLY CONTENTED COOPERATIVE EVEN-TEMPERED COMMUNICATIVE PERSEVERES CURIOUS PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITY CONCENTRATES SUSTAINED ATTENTION PLACID CALM RELAXED COMPLIANT SELF-CONTROLLED 1 2 3 Component Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Task Orientation Sociabilit y Settledness Rotated factor matrix - PC Oblimin
- 81.
- 82.
- 83. 83 • Bare min.= 2 • Recommended min. = 3 • Max. = unlimited • More items: → ↑ reliability → ↑ 'roundedness' → Law of diminishing returns • Typically 4 to 10 items per factor is reasonable How many items per factor?
- 84. 84 How to eliminateitems A subjective process; consider: 1. Size of item's main loading (min. > .4) 2. Size of cross loadings (max. < .3?) 3. Meaning of item & contribution it makes to the factor (face validity) 4. Eliminate 1 variable at a time, then re- run, before deciding which/if any items to eliminate next 5. Number of items already in the factor
- 85. 85 Factor loadings &item selection Comrey & Lee's (1992) guideline for primary (target) factor loadings: > .70 - excellent > .63 - very good > .55 - good > .45 - fair < .32 - poor
- 86. 86 Factor loadings &item selection Cut-off for item loadings within a factor: • Look for gap in loadings - e.g., .8 .7 .6 .3 .2 • Also consider whether factor can be interpreted (i.e., does it make sense?) using the items above but not below cut- off.
- 87. 87 Other considerations: Normality ofitems • Check the item descriptive statistics. • The more normally distributed the measurement items, the better the correlations and the better the distributions for the composite scores. – e.g. if items have similar Factor Loadings, consider selecting items which will have the lower skewness and kurtosis values.
- 88. 88 Factor analysis inpractice • To find a good EFA solution, consider both: –PC and PAF methods of extraction –Orthogonal and Oblique rotation • A range of possible factor structures, e.g., for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 factors • Thus, the researcher would normally conduct many EFAs before deciding on a final solution.
- 89. 89 • Eliminate pooritems one at a time, re- examining each subsequent solution. • Consider checking the final factor structure across sub-groups (e.g., gender) if there is sufficient data (advanced option) • You may come up with a different solution from someone else! • Check/consider reliability analysis (next lecture) Factor analysis in practice
- 90. 90 EFA example 3: CondomUse Self-Efficacy Scale
- 91. 91 Example: Condom use •The 10-item Condom Use Self-Efficacy Scale was administered to 447 multicultural college students (Barkley & Burns, 2000). • EFA PC with a Varimax rotation. • Three factors extracted: 1. Appropriation 2. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 3. Partners' Disapproval
- 92. 92 Factor loadings &item selection .56 I feel confident I could gracefully remove and dispose of a condom after sexual intercourse. .61 I feel confident I could remember to carry a condom with me should I need one. .65 I feel confident I could purchase condoms without feeling embarrassed. .75 I feel confident in my ability to put a condom on myself or my partner. FL Factor 1: Appropriation - acquisition and use of a condom ( = .76)
- 93. 93 .80 I would notfeel confident suggesting using condoms with a new partner because I would be afraid he or she would think I thought they had a sexually transmitted disease. .86 I would not feel confident suggesting using condoms with a new partner because I would be afraid he or she would think I have a sexually transmitted disease. .72 I would not feel confident suggesting using condoms with a new partner because I would be afraid he or she would think I've had a past homosexual experience. FL Factor 2: Sexually Transmitted Diseases - Stigma associated with STDs ( = .83) Factor loadings & item selection
- 94. 94 .58 If my partnerand I were to try to use a condom and did not succeed, I would feel embarrassed to try to use one again (e.g. not being able to unroll condom, putting it on backwards or awkwardness). .65 If I were unsure of my partner's feelings about using condoms I would not suggest using one. .73 If I were to suggest using a condom to a partner, I would feel afraid that he or she would reject me. FL Factor 3: Partner's reaction - students' partners' feelings about condoms ( = .66) Factor loadings & item selection
- 95.
- 96. 96 Summary: About factoranalysis • Factor analysis is a family of multivariate correlational data analysis methods for summarising clusters of covariance. • FA summarises correlations amongst items. • The common clusters (called factors) are summary indicators of underlying fuzzy constructs.
- 97. 97 Summary: Assumptions • Samplesize – 5+ cases per variables (ideally 20+ cases per variable) – Another guideline: N > 200 • Bivariate & multivariate outliers • Factorability of correlation matrix (Measures of Sampling Adequacy) • Normality enhances the solution
- 98. 98 Summary: Steps /process 1. Test assumptions 2. Select extraction method and rotation 3. Determine no. of factors (Eigen Values, Scree plot, % variance explained) 4. Select items (check factor loadings to identify which items belong in which factor; drop items one by one; repeat) 5. Name and define factors 6. Examine correlations amongst factors 7. Analyse internal reliability 8. Compute composite scores Next lecture
- 99. 99 Summary: Types ofFA • PAF (Principal Axis Factoring): Best for theoretical data exploration –uses shared variance • PC (Principal Components): Best for data reduction –uses all variance
- 100. 100 Summary: Rotation • Orthogonal(Varimax) – perpendicular (uncorrelated) factors • Oblique (Oblimin) – angled (correlated) factors • Consider trying both ways – Are solutions different? Why?
- 101. 101 How many factorsto extract? • Inspect EVs – look for > 1 or sudden drop (inspect scree plot) • % of variance explained – aim for 50 to 75% • Interpretability – does each factor 'make sense'? • Theory – does the model fit with theory? Summary: Factor extraction
- 102. 102 Summary: Item selection AnEFA of a good measurement instrument ideally has: • a simple factor structure (each variable loads strongly (> +.50) on only one factor) • each factor has multiple loading variables (more loadings → greater reliability) • target factor loadings are high (> .6) and cross-loadings are low (< .3), with few intermediate values (.3 to .6).
- 103. 103 1. Barkley, T.W. Jr., & Burns, J. L. (2000). Factor analysis of the Condom Use Self-Efficacy Scale among multicultural college studen . Health Education Research, 15(4), 485-489. 2. Comrey, A. L. & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 3. Fehriinger H. M.(2004). Contributions and limitations of Cattell's sixteen personality factor model. 4. Howitt, D. & Cramer, D. (2011). Chapter 30: Factor analysis: Simplifying complex data. In Introduction to statistics in psychology (pp. 362-379) (5th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson. 5. Ivancevic, V., Kaine, A. K., MCLindin, B .A, & Sunde, J. (2003). Factor analysis of essential facial features. In the Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces (ITI), pp. 187-191, Cavtat, Croatia. 6. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299. 7. Francis, G. (2007). Introduction to SPSS for Windows: v. 15.0 and 14.0 with Notes for Studentware (5th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Education. 8. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Principal components and factor analysis. In Using multivariate statistics. (4th ed., pp. 582 - 633). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. References
- 104. 104 Open Office Impress ●This presentation was made using Open Office Impress. ● Free and open source software. ● http://www.openoffice.org/product/impress.html
Editor's Notes
- #2 7126/6667 Survey Research & Design in Psychology Semester 1, 2017, University of Canberra, ACT, Australia James T. Neill Home page: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Survey_research_and_design_in_psychology Lecture page: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Exploratory_factor_analysis Notes page:http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Survey_research_methods_and_design_in_psychology Image source:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pleiades_large.jpg Image authorr: NASA, ESA, AURA/Caltech, Palomar Observatory The science team consists of: D. Soderblom and E. Nelan (STScI), F. Benedict and B. Arthur (U. Texas), and B. Jones (Lick Obs.) License: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain Description: Introduces and explains the use of exploratory factor analysis particularly for the purposes of psychometric instrument development. This lecture is accompanied by a computer-lab based tutorial, the notes for which are available here: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Survey_research_and_design_in_psychology/Tutorials/Psychometrics
- #3 Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Information_icon4.svg License: Public domain
- #4 The amount of reading is really up to the individual student. Some may prefer to read one or two readings in-depth, others may prefer a lighter reading of a range of sources. Do whatever works for you. Learning about FA involves learning some new language/terminology – hence the EFA glossary is recommended.
- #6 Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Information_icon4.svg License: Public domain
- #7 &lt;number&gt; Image source:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AEarth&apos;s_Location_in_the_Universe_SMALLER_(JPEG).jpg Image author: Andrew Z. Colvin, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Azcolvin429 Image license: CC-by-SA 3.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en
- #8 &lt;number&gt; Image source: James Neill, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:FactorAnalysis_ConceptualModel_DotsRings.png Factor analysis can be conceived of as a method for examining a matrix of correlations in search of clusters of highly correlated variables. Exploratory factor analysis is a tool to help a researcher ‘throw a hoop’ around clusters of related items (i.e., items that seem to share a central underlying theme), to distinguish between clusters, and to identify and eliminate irrelevant or indistinct (overlapping) items.
- #10 See also http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stfacan.html A major purpose of factor analysis is data reduction, i.e., to reduce complexity in the data, by identifying underlying (latent) clusters of association. Commonly used in psychometric instrument development.
- #11 FA helps to eliminate: redundant variables (e.g, items which are highly correlated are unnecessary) unclear variables(e.g., items which don’t load cleanly on a single factor) irrelevant variables(e.g., variables which have low loadings)
- #12 &lt;number&gt;
- #13 &lt;number&gt;
- #14 FA helps to eliminate: redundant variables (e.g, items which are highly correlated are unnecessary) unclear variables(e.g., items which don’t load cleanly on a single factor) irrelevant variables(e.g., variables which have low loadings)
- #15 “Introduced and established by Pearson in 1901 and Spearman three years thereafter, factor analysis is a process by which large clusters and grouping of data are replaced and represented by factors in the equation. As variables are reduced to factors, relationships between the factors begin to define the relationships in the variables they represent (Goldberg & Digman, 1994). In the early stages of the process&apos; development, there was little widespread use due largely in part to the immense amount of hand calculations required to determine accurate results, often spanning periods of several months. Later on a mathematical foundation would be developed aiding in the process and contributing to the later popularity of the methodology. In present day, the power of super computers makes the use of factor analysis a simplistic process compared to the 1900&apos;s when only the devoted researchers could use it to accurately attain results (Goldberg & Digman, 1994).” From http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/fehringer.html Terminology was introduced by Thurstone (1931) - http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stfacan.html
- #16 &lt;number&gt; CFA has become the professional standard now for testing and developing theoretical factor structures, but Exploratory factor analysis still has its place and is an important multivariate statistical tool. We will only be focusing on EFA, a more tradition method, which is, however, been gradually used less and CFA is becoming more common. CFA uses is more recent and powerful, usually covered at PhD level.
- #17 &lt;number&gt; CFA has become the professional standard now for testing and developing theoretical factor structures, but Exploratory factor analysis still has its place and is an important multivariate statistical tool. We will only be focusing on EFA, a more tradition method, which is, however, been gradually used less and CFA is becoming more common. CFA uses is more recent and powerful, usually covered at PhD level.
- #18 &lt;number&gt; Arrows represent single items (or variables) on a test/survey/questionnaire. The circles represent factors, i.e., the shared variance amongst different sets of related items.
- #19 &lt;number&gt;
- #20 &lt;number&gt;
- #21 &lt;number&gt;
- #22 &lt;number&gt; Image sources: http://www.creative-wisdom.com/teaching/assessment/subscales.html
- #24 &lt;number&gt; Image source: http://people.cs.uct.ac.za/~dburford/masters/SATNAC/2000/index.html Image license: Unknown
- #25 &lt;number&gt; Factors were orthogonal (independent). Information Technology Interfaces, Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on ?, Volume , Issue , 16-19 June 2003 Page(s): 187 - 191Summary: We present the results of an exploratory factor analysis to determine the minimum number of facial features required for recognition. In the introduction, we provide an overview of research we have done in the area of the evaluation of facial recognition systems. In the next section, we provide a description of the facial recognition process (including signal processing operations such as face capture, normalisation, feature extraction, database comparison, decision and action). The following section provides description of the variables. We follow with our main result, where we have used a sample of 80 face images from a test database. We have preselected 20 normalized facial features and extracted six essential orthogonal factors, representing 76.5 % of the total facial feature variability. They are (in order of importance): upper-lip, eyebrow-position, nose-width, eye-position, eye/eyebrow-length and face-width. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/8683/27508/01225343.pdf Ivancevic, V., Kaine, A.K., MCLindin, B.A, & Sunde, J. (2003). Factor analysis of essential facial features. In the proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces (ITI), pp. 187-191, Cavtat, Croatia.http://hdl.handle.net/1947/2580
- #27 Based on Francis Section 5.6, which is based on the Victorian Quality Schools Project. Francis, G. (2007). Introduction to SPSS for Windows: v. 15.0 and 14.0 with Notes for Studentware (5th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Education.
- #28 Image source: http://www.acer.edu.au/research/programs/documents/RoweITUC_2004Paper.pdf This is from the questionnaire used in Francis 5.6, pp. 157-164.
- #33 See also http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Exploratory_factor_analysis/Data_analysis_tutorial See also http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Exploratory_factor_analysis/Data_analysis_tutorial
- #34 &lt;number&gt; Image sources: ClipArt (Unknown) Garbage In –&gt; Garbage Out i.e., Put Crap (i.e., data with no logical relationship) into Factor Analysis –&gt; Get Crap Out of Factor Analysis i.e., check your assumptions
- #36 EFA should be theory or purpose-driven - avoid fishing expeditions Only analyse sets of theoretically related measurement items.
- #38 Image source: Table 7 Fabrigar et al (1999).
- #40 Image source: Table 7 Fabrigar et al (1999).
- #43 &lt;number&gt; Example: Someone who works full-time, studies full-time, averages an HD, and has 2 children.
- #46 Image source: Francis 5.6, pp. 157-164?
- #47 &lt;number&gt;
- #48 Image source: Francis 5.6, pp. 157-164 Be careful to examine the anti-image correlation matrix (not the anti-image covariance matrix)
- #49 &lt;number&gt; Large KMO values indicate that a factor analysis of the variables is a good idea. Should be &gt; .5 for a satisfactory factor analysis
- #50 Image source: This is from Francis 5.6, pp. 157-164 Image source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thumbs-up-icon.svg Image author: Bersam, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Bersam Image license: CC-by-SA 3.0 unported, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en
- #51 &lt;number&gt;
- #52 &lt;number&gt;
- #53 &lt;number&gt;
- #54 &lt;number&gt;
- #55 &lt;number&gt;
- #56 &lt;number&gt;
- #58 Image: Francis 5.6, pp. 157-164
- #59 &lt;number&gt; Communalit also equals the sum of the squared loadings for the variable on each of the factors.
- #60 &lt;number&gt;
- #61 Also show a PC Communalities table and point out difference in Initial values. Image source: Francis 5.6, pp. 157-164
- #62 EV = sum of squared correlations
- #63 Image: Francis 5.6, pp. 157-164
- #64 c. the true correlation between and Age and Performance is not equal to 0
- #65 If all the EVs are added together, it will equal the number of items. In other words, each item contributes a variance of 1 to be explained.
- #66 Image: Francis 5.6, pp. 157-164 Y-axis shows variance (eigen variables) for each factor. Look for “elbow” in the curve - point where additional factors don’t add much to explained variance.
- #67 &lt;number&gt; Image source: James Neill, Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/
- #68 &lt;number&gt;
- #69 &lt;number&gt; The max. no. of possible factors = no. of variables Its important to refer back to original wording of questionnaire items – get the item labels to show on the SPSS output
- #70 Image source: http://www.siu.edu/~epse1/pohlmann/factglos/
- #73 Image source (left): http://www.xs-stock.co.uk/shopimages/products/normal/Kerplunk.jpg Image source (right): http://mayhem-chaos.net/photoblog/images/super_sized_kerplunk.jpg
- #75 Orthogonal - Vectors (lines of best fit or factors) are perpendicular Oblimin - Vectors angles are permitted to be acute, i.e., correlation allowed between factors There is also: Quartimaxmaximises variance of loadings on each variable Equamaxcompromise between quartimax and varimax
- #80 Image source: Francis 5.6, pp. 157-164
- #81 Image source: Francis 5.6, pp. 157-164 ‘Compliant’ (6) and ‘Self-controlled’ (7) load onto 2 factors - run analysis without these two variables.
- #82 Image source: Francis 5.6, pp. 157-164 ‘Compliant’ (6) and ‘Self-controlled’ (7) load onto 2 factors - run analysis without these two variables.
- #83 Image source: (Based on?) Francis 5.6, pp. 157-164
- #84 &lt;number&gt;
- #85 &lt;number&gt;
- #89 Tip: The rotated factor loading results can be printed out and color-coded with a highlighter for careful cross-comparison
- #92 Factor analysis of the Condom Use Self-Efficacy Scale among multicultural college students Thomas W. Barkley, Jr and Jason L. Burns (2000) http://her.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/15/4/485 Response scale used a five-point Likert scale format, ranging from `strongly disagree&apos; to `strongly agree&apos;. Each of the responses is scored as follows: `strongly disagree&apos; = 0, `disagree&apos; = 1, `undecided&apos; = 2, `agree&apos; = 3 and `strongly agree&apos; = 4.
- #99 See also http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Exploratory_factor_analysis/Data_analysis_tutorial See also http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Exploratory_factor_analysis/Data_analysis_tutorial