|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
An Objective Counterpart to the Visual Scree Test for Factor Analysis: The Standard Error Scree
Keith W. Zoski
University of Toledo
Stephen Jurs
University of Toledo
Many methods have been suggested for determining the number of factors in factor analysis solutions, most of them trying to match visual solutions. Presented here is a linear regression approach providing objectivity while producing the same results as the visual scree test. The standard error scree is based on the standard error of estimate for a set of points in the plot of eigenvalues. The number of factors to retain corresponds to the point where the standard error exceeds 1/m, where m is the numbers of variables in the analysis. Experience with the method to date indicates that the results are consistent with visual solutions.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 56, No. 3,
443-451 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164496056003006

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
G. L. Canivez and T. N. Beran
Adjustment Scales for Children and Adolescents: Factorial Validity in a Canadian Sample
Canadian Journal of School Psychology,
December 1, 2009;
24(4):
284 - 302.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
F. Nasser, J. Benson, and J. Wisenbaker
The Performance of Regression-Based Variations of the Visual Scree for Determining the Number of Common Factors
Educational and Psychological Measurement,
June 1, 2002;
62(3):
397 - 419.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
F. Nasser and J. Wisenbaker
Modeling the Observation-to-Variable Ratio Necessary for Determining the Number of Factors by the Standard Error Scree Procedure Using Logistic Regression
Educational and Psychological Measurement,
June 1, 2001;
61(3):
387 - 403.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. D. Van Fleet, A. McWilliams, and D. S. Siegel
A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Journal Rankings: The Case of Formal Lists
Journal of Management,
October 1, 2000;
26(5):
839 - 861.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|
|