Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T09:05:57.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fitting the Factor Analysis Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Michael W. Browne
Michael W. Browne*
Affiliation:
Educational Testing Service
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When the covariance matrix Σ(p×P) does not satisfy the formal factor analysis model for m factors, there will be no factor matrix Λ(p×m) such that γ=(Σ-ΛΛ′) is diagonal. The factor analysis model may then be replaced by a tautology where γ is regarded as the covariance matrix of a set of “residual variates.” These residual variates are linear combinations of “discarded” common factors and unique factors and are correlated. Maximum likelihood, alpha and iterated principal factor analysis are compared in terms of the manner in which γ is defined, a “maximum determinant” derivation for alpha factor analysis being given. Weighted least squares solutions using residual variances and common variances as weights are derived for comparison with the maximum likelihood and alpha solutions. It is shown that the covariance matrix γ defined by maximum likelihood factor analysis is Gramian, provided that all diagonal elements are nonnegative. Other methods can define a γ which is nonGramian even when all diagonal elements are nonnegative.

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , September 1969 , pp. 375 - 394
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

A modified version of this paper forms part of a Ph.D. thesis submitted to the University of South Africa.

†

Presently at the National Institute for Personnel Research, South Africa.

References

Anderson, T. W., & Rubin, H. Statistical inference in factor analysis. In Neyman, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the third Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. 1956, 111–150.Google Scholar
Bargmann, R. E. A study of independence and dependence in multivariate normal analysis, 1957, Chapel Hill, N. C.: Univ. of North Carolina, Institute of Statistics.Google Scholar
Browne, M. W. A comparison of factor analytic techniques. Psychometrika, 1968, 33, 267–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guttman, L. Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1954, 19, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, H. H., & Fukuda, Y. Resolution of the Heywood case in the minres solution. Psychometrika, 1966, 31, 563–571.10.1007/BF02289525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, H. H., & Jones, W. H. Factor analysis by minimizing residuals (minres). Psychometrika, 1966, 31, 351–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, C. W. Some Rao-Guttman relationships. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horst, P. Factor analysis of data matrices, 1965, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Howe, W. G. Some contributions to factor analysis, 1955, Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G. Statistical estimation in factor analysis, 1963, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G. Some contributions to maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1967, 32, 443–482.10.1007/BF02289658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H. F., & Caffrey, J. Alpha factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1965, 30, 1–14.10.1007/BF02289743CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawley, D. N. The estimation of factor loadings by the method of maximum likelihood. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1940, 60, 64–82.10.1017/S037016460002006XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawley, D. N. Further investigations in factor estimation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1941, 61, 176–185.Google Scholar
Lederman, W. On the rank of the reduced correlational matrix in multiple factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1937, 2, 85–93.10.1007/BF02288062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novick, M. R., & Lewis, C. Coefficient alpha and the reliability of composite measurements. Psychometrika, 1967, 32, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ostrowski, A. M. A quantitative formulation of Sylvester's Law of Inertia. Proceedings of the National Acaemy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1959, 45, 740–744.Google ScholarPubMed
Rao, C. R. Estimation and tests of significance in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1955, 20, 93–111.10.1007/BF02288983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozeboom, W. W. Linear correlations between sets of variables. Psychometrika, 1965, 30, 57–71.10.1007/BF02289747CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomson, G. H. Hotelling's method modified to give Spearman's g. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1934, 25, 366–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. R., Koopman, R. F., & Linn, R. L. Evaluation of factor analytic research procedures by means of simulated correlation matrices, 1967, Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois.Google Scholar