Literature DB >> 26789789

The Effects of Overextraction on Factor and Component Analysis.

J L Fava, W F Velicer.   

Abstract

The effects of overextracting factors and components within and between the methods of maximum likelihood factor analysis (MLFA) and principal component analysis (PCA) were examined. Computer-simulated data sets were generated to represent a range of factor and component patterns. Saturation (aij = .8, .6 & .4), sample size (N = 75, 150,225,450), and variable-to-component (factor) ratio (p:m = 12:1,6:1, & 4:1) were conditions manipulated. In Study 1, scores based on the incorrect patterns were correlated with correct scores within each method after each overextraction. In Study 2, scores were correlated between the methods of PCAand MLFA after each overextraction. Overextraction had a negative effect, but scores based on strong component and factor patterns displayed robustness to the effects of overextraction. Low item saturation and low sample size resulted in degraded score reproduction. Degradation was strongest for patterns that combined low saturation and low sample size. Component and factor scores were highly correlated even at maximal levels of overextraction. Dissimilarity between score methods was the greatest in conditions that combined low saturation and low sample size. Some guidelines for researchers concerning the effects of overextraction are noted, as well as some cautions in the interpretation of results.

Entities:  

Year:  1992        PMID: 26789789     DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2703_5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Multivariate Behav Res        ISSN: 0027-3171            Impact factor:   5.923


  7 in total

Review 1.  Methodological issues in determining the dimensionality of composite health measures using principal component analysis: case illustration and suggestions for practice.

Authors:  Joël Coste; Stéphane Bouée; Emmanuel Ecosse; Alain Leplège; Jacques Pouchot
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Evaluation of PCA and ICA of simulated ERPs: Promax vs. Infomax rotations.

Authors:  Joseph Dien; Wayne Khoe; George R Mangun
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Type I and Type II Error Rates and Overall Accuracy of the Revised Parallel Analysis Method for Determining the Number of Factors.

Authors:  Samuel B Green; Marilyn S Thompson; Roy Levy; Wen-Juo Lo
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 2.821

4.  Development and Validation of the Cognitive Behavioral Physical Activity Questionnaire.

Authors:  Susan M Schembre; Casey P Durand; Bryan J Blissmer; Geoffrey W Greene
Journal:  Am J Health Promot       Date:  2014-08-27

5.  A Tribute to the Mind, Methodology and Mentoring of Wayne Velicer.

Authors:  Lisa L Harlow; Leona Aiken; A Nayena Blankson; Gwyneth M Boodoo; Leslie Ann D Brick; Linda M Collins; Geoff Cumming; Joseph L Fava; Matthew S Goodwin; Bettina B Hoeppner; David P MacKinnon; Peter C M Molenaar; Joseph Lee Rodgers; Joseph S Rossi; Allie Scott; James H Steiger; Stephen G West
Journal:  Multivariate Behav Res       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 5.923

6.  The Poor Fit of Model Fit for Selecting Number of Factors in Exploratory Factor Analysis for Scale Evaluation.

Authors:  Amanda K Montoya; Michael C Edwards
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 3.088

7.  Identifying the cognitive processes underpinning hippocampal-dependent tasks.

Authors:  Ian A Clark; Victoria Hotchin; Anna Monk; Gloria Pizzamiglio; Alice Liefgreen; Eleanor A Maguire
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2019-03-04
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.