Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fava, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Velicer, W. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Effects of Underextraction in Factor and Component Analyses

Joseph L. Fava

University of Rhode Island

Wayne F. Velicer

University of Rhode Island

The consequences of underextracting factors and components within and between the methods of maximum likelihood factor analysis (MLFA) and principal components analysis (PCA) were examined. Computer-simulated data sets represented a range of pattern structures. Manipulated conditions included component (factor) structure coefficients (aij = .8, .6, and .4), sample size (N = 75, 150, 225, and 450), and variable-to-component (factor) ratio (p:m = 6:1 and 4:1). The principal components score and the Anderson and Rubin factor score estimate were calculated for both the correct patterns and the incorrect (underextracted) patterns. In Study 1, underextraction led to substantial degradation of scores within both methods, but the component score degraded less rapidly. Score degradation was related to the number of original components (factors). In Study 2, between-method comparisons indicated very high similarity for baseline score patterns, but dissimilarity occurred with underextraction.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 56, No. 6, 907-929 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164496056006001
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
C. E. Lance, M. M. Butts, and L. C. Michels
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?
Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2006; 9(2): 202 - 220.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologyHome page
M.-A. Suizzo
French and American Mothers' Childrearing Beliefs: Stimulating, Responding, and Long-Term Goals
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, September 1, 2004; 35(5): 606 - 626.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
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]

Home page
 Gifted Child QuarterlyHome page
J. A. Plucker
Flip Sides of the Same Coin or Marching to the Beat of Different Drummers? A Response to Pyryt
Gifted Child Quarterly, July 1, 2000; 44(3): 193 - 195.
[Abstract] [PDF]