Literature DB >> 24183474

On exploratory factor analysis: a review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use.

Cadeyrn J Gaskin1, Brenda Happell2.   

Abstract

Exploratory factor analysis (hereafter, factor analysis) is a complex statistical method that is integral to many fields of research. Using factor analysis requires researchers to make several decisions, each of which affects the solutions generated. In this paper, we focus on five major decisions that are made in conducting factor analysis: (i) establishing how large the sample needs to be, (ii) choosing between factor analysis and principal components analysis, (iii) determining the number of factors to retain, (iv) selecting a method of data extraction, and (v) deciding upon the methods of factor rotation. The purpose of this paper is threefold: (i) to review the literature with respect to these five decisions, (ii) to assess current practices in nursing research, and (iii) to offer recommendations for future use. The literature reviews illustrate that factor analysis remains a dynamic field of study, with recent research having practical implications for those who use this statistical method. The assessment was conducted on 54 factor analysis (and principal components analysis) solutions presented in the results sections of 28 papers published in the 2012 volumes of the 10 highest ranked nursing journals, based on their 5-year impact factors. The main findings from the assessment were that researchers commonly used (a) participants-to-items ratios for determining sample sizes (used for 43% of solutions), (b) principal components analysis (61%) rather than factor analysis (39%), (c) the eigenvalues greater than one rule and screen tests to decide upon the numbers of factors/components to retain (61% and 46%, respectively), (d) principal components analysis and unweighted least squares as methods of data extraction (61% and 19%, respectively), and (e) the Varimax method of rotation (44%). In general, well-established, but out-dated, heuristics and practices informed decision making with respect to the performance of factor analysis in nursing studies. Based on the findings from factor analysis research, it seems likely that the use of such methods may have had a material, adverse effect on the solutions generated. We offer recommendations for future practice with respect to each of the five decisions discussed in this paper. Crown
Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Factor analysis; Measurement; Nursing research; Principal components analysis; Research design; Review literature as topic; Statistics; Statistics as topic

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24183474     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.10.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud        ISSN: 0020-7489            Impact factor:   5.837


  79 in total

1.  Psychometric Analysis of the Parenting Concerns Questionnaire in Women With Metastatic Cancer.

Authors:  Eliza M Park; Xianming Tan; Elise M Stephenson; Allison M Deal; Justin M Yopp; Donald L Rosenstein; Teresa Edwards; Mi-Kyung Song
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2017-09-23       Impact factor: 3.612

2.  Validation of the Internet Addiction Test in Students at a Pakistani Medical and Dental School.

Authors:  Ahmed Waqas; Faisal Farooq; Mohsin Raza; Saamia Tahir Javed; Spogmai Khan; Mahrukh Elahi Ghumman; Sadiq Naveed; Mark Haddad
Journal:  Psychiatr Q       Date:  2018-03

3.  Psychometric Comparison of the Full and Abbreviated Versions of the Dysfunctional Beliefs and Attitudes about Sleep Scale.

Authors:  Ka-Fai Chung; Fiona Yan-Yee Ho; Wing-Fai Yeung
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 4.062

4.  Development and validation of the knowledge and attitude regarding childhood vaccination (KACV) questionnaire among healthcare workers: the Malay version.

Authors:  Azidah Abdul Kadir; Norhayati Mohd Noor; Ahmad Faiq Mukhtar
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2021-10-29       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Combining Parallel and Exploratory Factor Analysis in Identifying Relationship Scales in Secondary Data.

Authors:  Nathan D Wood; Djidjoho C Akloubou Gnonhosou; Justin Bowling
Journal:  Marriage Fam Rev       Date:  2015

Review 6.  Factors of psychological distress: clinical value, measurement substance, and methodological artefacts.

Authors:  J R Böhnke; T J Croudace
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2015-02-15       Impact factor: 4.328

7.  Discovering the underlying typology of emergency departments.

Authors:  Marine Demarquet; Laurie Fraticelli; Julie Freyssenge; Clément Claustre; Mikaël Martinez; Jonathan Duchenne; Carlos El Khoury; Abdesslam Redjaline; Karim Tazarourte
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-06-05       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  A combined biomarker approach for characterising extracellular matrix profiles in acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Morgane M Brunton-O'Sullivan; Ana S Holley; Kathryn E Hally; Gisela A Kristono; Scott A Harding; Peter D Larsen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  International study to develop the WOUND-Q patient-reported outcome measure for all types of chronic wounds.

Authors:  Anne F Klassen; Emiel L W G van Haren; Tert C van Alphen; Stefan Cano; Karen M Cross; Anne-Margreet van Dishoeck; Kenneth L Fan; Maarten Michael Hoogbergen; Dennis Orgill; Lotte Poulsen; Jens Ahm Sørensen; Lee Squitieri; Elena Tsangaris; Dalibor Vasilic; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 3.315

10.  Development and Validation of Peer Relationship Scale for Chinese Community-Dwelling Elderly.

Authors:  Jingjing Fu; Zhen Cheng; Siqi Liu; Zongping Hu; Zhu Zhong; Yu Luo
Journal:  Psychol Res Behav Manag       Date:  2021-06-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.