Chapter 7 - Factor Analysis

University of Sharjah - DBA Quantitative Business Research Methods II
Chapter 7: Factor Analysis
Contents
▪ Factor Analysis Assumptions
▪ Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
▪ Principal Axis Factoring (PAF)
▪ Rotation methods (i.e., Orthogonal and Oblique)
▪ Numerical, Ordinal, Nominal variables
▪ Categorical Principal Components Analysis (CATPCA)
▪ Reverse-coded variables (Appendix)
Factor Analysis
Objective: Factor analysis is a variable reduction technique where a large number of

variables (namely, columns of a data set; please see Table 1 below) can be summarized
into a smaller set of factors. Factor analysis can also be used to identify
interrelationships between variables in a data set.
Note: Factor analysis is based on correlation analysis.
Factor analysis draws on the assumption that all variables correlate to some degree.
Hence, those variables that express the same or similar concepts could be highly
correlated. The role of factor analysis is to identify factors. In other words, to identify
groups of highly correlated variables.
Attention: Suppose we want to run regression analysis. After factor analysis, we will
not introduce the original variables in the regression model but the factors or latent
variables.
Please mind that factor analysis reduces (not always) multicollinearity (advantage) and
𝑅 2 (disadvantage). Factor analysis is not recommended when the regression model’s
𝑅 2 < 0.5.
Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 1

To be confident that multicollinearity has been addressed after extracting factors from
the original variables, you can rerun the regression model using the factors as
independent variables instead of the original variables.
Further reading about the failures of factor analysis to reduce multicollinearity

Hadi, A.S., & Ling, R.F. (1998). Some cautionary notes on the use of principal
components regression. American Statistical Association, 52(1), 15–19.
Table 1. Sample questionnaire

Factors or
Q1 Q2 Q3
Latent variables
Variables V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16 V17

R1 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 5
R2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4
R3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 4
R4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4
R5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5
R6 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
R7 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
R8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5
R9 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5
R10 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5
R11 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
R12 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5
R13 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 3
R14 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5
R15 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5
Note: Latent variables (or factors) are variables that are inferred, not directly observed,
from other variables that are observed.
Steps to apply Factor Analysis

There are the following steps to apply factor analysis (kindly mind that SPSS performs
the steps below):
1. Construct a correlation matrix for all variables
2. Extract initial factors. We should decide on the extraction method. The basic
methods for extracting factors are:
(a) the Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
(b) the Principal Axis Factoring (PAF)

3. Rotate the extracted factors to reach a terminal (optimal) solution. There are two
factor-rotation methods:
(a) the Orthogonal (e.g., Varimax, Quartimax, Equamax).
Note: the Orthogonal rotation methods assume that factors are not correlated.
(b) the Oblique (e.g., Direct Oblimin, Promax).
Note: the Oblique rotation methods assume that factors are correlated.
Attention: In social science research, the Oblique rotation is preferred as factors
are correlated.
Question: What is factor rotation, and why do we use it?
Answer: We rotate the axes to identify factors that fit the actual variables better (the
figure above shows a two-factor analysis)
Further Insight
▪ Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is appropriate if the purpose is no more than
to reduce the number of variables in the data set. In other words, we use PCA to
obtain the minimum number of factors (groups of variables) needed to represent the
original data set.
Attention: PCA assumes no error in the data or the measurement. This is not
consistent with social sciences, as error exists.
Attention: the factors extracted using the PCA do not have any theoretical support
or validity but are justified statistically only.

Note: The PCA is the most widely used factor extraction approach as it is less
restrictive than other methods. However, there are many cases where PAF is
preferred. In social sciences, many scholars prefer to use PAF than PCA.
Note: If you select PCA, it is better to use the Orthogonal rotation method – most
commonly the Varimax.
▪ Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) is appropriate if the objective is to identify
theoretically meaningful factors.
Attention: PAF allows errors in the data or measurements.
Note: If you select PAF, it is better to use the Oblique rotation – most commonly the
Promax. Kindly mind that the Promax is a relaxed Orthogonal rotation method.
Assumptions
Assumption #1: The variables should be continuous. However, it is common to use
factor analysis with ordinal variables as well. We can use factor
analysis even with nominal variables (Note: only when a few
nominal variables are present in the data set we can use factor
analysis. If a considerable number of nominal and/or ordinal variables
is present, we can use Categorical Principal Components Analysis
instead).
Assumption #2: Sample size: 𝑛 ≥ 𝑚𝑎𝑥{150 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠, 10 × #𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠}
For instance, if the number (#) of variables is 10, then 10 × 10 =
100. In that case, the adequate sample size for having a reliable factor
analysis is at least 150 (i.e., the maximum between 150 participants
and 100).
Assumption #3: Normality. Each variable should be roughly normally distributed.
Note: Violations of this assumption do not distort the quality of the
factor analysis results. Factor analysis is fairly robust against
violations of the normality assumption.
Assumption #4: Linearity. Roughly linear relationships should be present between the
variables.
Note: This assumption is associated with correlation analysis that is
a foundation for factor analysis.

Assumption #5: No extreme outliers. The presence of extreme observations can distort
the factor analysis results.
Note: Assumptions #1 and #2 are met by the study design, while assumptions #3, #4,
and #5 are tested using SPSS.
Factor Analysis – Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
Example: Data set #24 – Factor Analysis
Figure 1a. Data set #24

Figure 2a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis Assumptions

Figure 5a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis Assumptions – Boxplots / Outliers
Note: There are no extreme outliers (e.g., denoted by asterisks in SPSS).

Figure 6a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis Assumptions – Normality

Note: As shown in the figure above, the normality assumption is violated. This finding
is confirmed both by Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. However,
acknowledging that the sample size exceeds 100 observations, we can assume that the
data are normally distributed drawing on the Central Limit Theorem.
Tip: Our sample size should be as big as possible and never consist of less than 100
observations.
Figure 7a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis


Figure 10a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA
Figure 11a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA - Varimax

Note: Since we selected the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method, the Varimax
orthogonal factor-rotation method is the most appropriate.

Figure 12a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA – Correlations coefficients cut-off
Note: We change the Absolute value below from .10 (default value) to .30. This
selection simplifies the output and makes it easier to interpret. If you are concerned
about the missing information due to the Absolute value change, you can rerun the
factor analysis with the default value and compare the results.

Note: As several of the correlations in the Correlation Matrix above (Figure 13a) are
higher than 0.3 (absolute values), the data are suitable for factor analysis.
Note: If we have one or more variables that do not have any correlations above 0.3,
then it’s better to remove this (or these) variable(s) from the factor analysis, as it is not
suitable.
How to remove a variable from factor analysis?: Please go back to Figure 8a and move
the variable that reports correlations lower than 0.3 with all the remaining sample
variables back to the left-hand side box.

Note: The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Karllett’s test provide information
about the suitability of the data for applying factor analysis. These two measures
provide further information (additional to the correlation matrix in Figure 13a) about
the factorability of the data.
Specifically, the KMO measure (it ranges between 0 and 1) reports the amount of
variance in the data that can be explained by the factors. As expected, higher values
are better. Generally, KMO measure values ≤ 𝟎. 𝟓 are unacceptable, indicating that
the variables are not appropriate for applying factor analysis. KMO measure values
≥ 𝟎. 𝟔 are regarded as suitable for factor analysis.
Please see Figure 16a for further details about the suitability of variables (one-by-one)
for incorporating them in factor analysis.
Attention: if the overall KMO measure is ≤ 𝟎. 𝟓, then check the Anti-Image

Correlation matrix – the diagonal values are equivalent to the KMO measure for
individual variables (e.g., Figure 16a) before declining to use factor analysis. There,
you may find specific variables with Anti-Image Colleration (diagonal scores) ≤ 𝟎. 𝟓
or even < 𝟎. 𝟔 (Tip: The variables assigned KMO measure between 0.5 and 0.6 are still
suitable for factor analysis but weak). Those variables are not suitable for factor

analysis and can be removed from the sample variables, which will be used for factor
analysis.
Barlett’s test of sphericity (in other words, homogeneity of variances) also indicates
how suitable the data are for factor analysis. If Barlett’s test is significant (i.e., 𝑝 <
0.05), then the data are suitable for factor analysis. If Barlett’s test is not significant
(i.e., 𝑝 ≥ 0.05), then the data are not suitable for factor analysis.
𝐻𝑜 : all variables’ correlations are equal to zero (𝑝 ≥ 0.05)
𝐻1 : variables’ correlations are not equal to zero (𝑝 < 0.05)
Interpretation: Both the KMO measure and Barlett’s test of sphericity suggest that the
data are suitable for factor analysis.

Note: KMO measures for individual variables are found in the Anti-Image Correlation
matrix above (see Figure 16a). In particular, the diagonal scores (highlighted values)
should ideally be ≥ 𝟎. 𝟔. However, given that the overall KMO measure (see Figure
14a) suggests that the sample variables are suitable for factor analysis, we could include
in the factor analysis even variables with (diagonal) scores between 0.5 and 0.6, even
if they are regarded as weak.
Attention: Please mind that sometimes, variables assigned low KMO scores (i.e., 𝑝 ≤
0.5) are reverse coded. Hence, before removing a variable with a low KMO (diagonal)
score from the sample, please check whether it is reverse coded. Details about reverse
coding are found in the appendix of this chapter.


Note: Communalities express the proportion of each variable’s variance that can be
explained by the factors. Under the title “Initial”, the first column shows the variable’s
variance that can be expressed by the identified factors, where the number of factors
here is the same as the number of variables.
Attention: The presence of ones is due to the PCA’s assumptions and the corresponding
Orthogonal rotation method; namely, the factors (here, all variables) are not correlated,
and errors are not considered in the measurement.
Note: The right-hand side column “Extraction”, presents each variable’s variance that
can be explained by the extracted factors, which are fewer in number than the variables.
As expected, the variance that can be explained now is lower than that in the “Initial”
column.

Note: Eigenvalues show the amount of variance explained by each variable. The table
above is useful as it helps us decide how many factors should be retained. The factors
assigned Eigenvalues > 1.0 should be retained. In this example, we keep two factors
from the original five variables. As shown in Figure 19a, these two factors can explain
92% of the total variance.

We also find that after rotation (Orthogonal – Varimax; see the last set of columns on
the right side of Figure 19a), there is no improvement in the explained variance, which
remains 92%.
Inflection Point

Note: The Scree Plot is a graph of the Eigenvalues; it is another tool we can use to
decide how many factors should be retained.
The factors we retain are those before the last inflection point of the graph. The
inflection point represents the point where the graph begins to level off, and subsequent
components add little to the total variance.
Attention: It’s common the Eigenvalues and the Scree Plot leading to different results.
A subjective decision is often needed.
Interpretation: Based on the Eigenvalue table above (see Figure 19a) and the Scree
Plot (please bear in mind that we retain the number of factors before the last inflection
point of the graph – in Figure 20a, the last inflection point is the third; thus, we could
retain two factors), we retain two factors.

Components or Factors

Interpretation: Based on the Rotated Component (or Factor) matrix (rotation method:
Orthogonal – Varimax), there are two factors. The first factor consists of the first three
variables (questions) shown in Figure 22a, and the second factor includes the last two
questions.
▪ Considering the questions in factor 1 (column #1), we could give a name to the
factor (latent variable), e.g., “Smoking freedom” or another related title.

▪ Also, taking into account the questions in factor 2 (column #2), the name for the
second factor could be: “Smoke in restaurants” or another related title.

Note: Going back to the Data set in SPSS, two new columns are added: FAC1_1 and
FAC2_1 referring to factor #1 and factor #2, respectively.
Attention: If you decide to run a regression analysis using these survey data, you
should introduce the two factors (latent variables) in the regression model instead of
the five variables.

Figure 24a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA – Setting the number of factors
(user-defined process)
Attention: Suppose that you want to set the number of factors (e.g., you prefer to have
a smaller number of factors in your analysis), then you can follow the same pathway
for running factor analysis in SPSS and select the Extraction option. As shown in Figure
24a, you should select “Fixed number of factors” instead of “Based on Eigenvalues”
and set the number of factors to extract in the highlighted box. Then, we should rerun
factor analysis.
Reporting: A Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was run on a five-question survey.

The overall Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure was 0.678, with individual KMO
measures all greater than 0.5. Barlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant
(𝑝 = 10−4 ), indicating that the data are suitable for factorization.
PCA indicated two factors to be retained that had Eigenvalues greater than one, which
explained 92.02% of the total variance.

A Varimax orthogonal rotation was employed and yielded the following results
Factor 1 Factor 2
I think people should have the right to smoke .985
I think smoking is acceptable .983
I don't care if people smoke around me .939
I don't think people should smoke around food .939
I don't think people should smoke in restaurants .933
Factor Analysis – Principal Axis Factoring (PAF)
Another view to factor analysis
Suppose that the factors are correlated (looking back at the results of the previous
analysis, the relationship between the two extracted factors is a valid scenario). Also,
suppose that there is a possibility of errors in the data or measurements.
In other words, let us apply Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) together with the Oblique
(Promax) rotation method to Data set #24.
As shown below, the results are similar to those obtained from the PCA and Orthogonal
(Varimax) rotation method. Specifically

Figure 1b. Data set #24 – Factor analysis Principal Axis Factoring (Promax)



Figure 6b. Data set #24 – PCA (left-hand side) vs PAF (right-hand side)


Factor Analysis – Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CATPCA)
The Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CATPCA) or Nonlinear Principal

Components Analysis is an extension of the conventional Principal Component
Analysis for categorical (i.e., ordinal or nominal) variables.
Advantages of CATPCA over the standard PCA

▪ CATPCA deals both with linear and nonlinear relationships
▪ CATPCA is particularly useful for variables measured on a Likert-type scale
▪ CATPCA can jointly analyze numeric, ordinal, and nominal variables, while PCA
solutions can only be interpreted when all variables are considered numeric.
Note: When all variables in the data set are numeric, and they are linearly related, PCA
and CATPCA will render exactly the same results.
Assumptions
Assumption #1: The analysis is based on positive integer data (i.e., ordinal or nominal,
including dichotomous, or both ordinal and nominal).
Example: Data set #25 – Factor Analysis
Background information: Data set #25 consists of 25 ordinal variables (i.e., questions)
measured on a 7-point scale (i.e., 1 – Strongly agree; 2 – Agree; 3 – Agree somewhat;
4 – Undecided; 5 – Disagree somewhat; 6 – Disagree; 7 – Strongly disagree).

Figure 1c. Data set #25 – Factor analysis - CATPCA

Figure 3c. Data set #25 – Factor analysis – CATPCA


Figure 7c. Data set #25 – Factor analysis – CATPCA (Orthogonal rotation: Varimax)

Figure 8.1.c. Data set #25 – Factor analysis – CATPCA

Figure 10c. Data set #25 – Factor analysis – CATPCA (Dimensions: 2)

Note: Based on the Eigenvalue criterion (i.e., we retain the factors or dimensions, as
called in the CATPCA context, with Eigenvalue > 1.0). As shown in the figure above,
the first and second dimensions are assigned Eigenvalues equal to 7.808 and 4.237,
respectively, which are considerably higher than 1.0.
Note: In the Figure above, Cronbach’s Alpha is an internal consistency measure (details
about this measure will be provided in the Reliability Analysis chapter). Any value
(reliability coefficient) greater than 0.7 is considered acceptable.
Interpretation: Both dimensions here have relatively high internal consistency. Also,
the two (user-defined) dimensions account for 48.18% of the original variables’
variance. Given that the Eigenvalues of the two dimensions are greater than 1.0 and the
low % of variance explained by these two dimensions, we can increase the dimensions
expecting to increase the accounted variance.


Note: We increase the number of dimensions to 3.

Note: Given that the Eigenvalues are greater than 1.0 for the three user-defined
dimensions (or factors) and that the % of variance explained by these dimensions is
considered low (i.e., 58.34%), we can increase further the number of dimensions.

Figure 14c. Data set #25 – Factor analysis – CATPCA (Eigenvalues & % of Variance
explained)
Note: After a few trials, playing with the number of the dimensions, we decide that the
optimal number is 8, which explains 78.3% of the total variance. For instance, we set
dimension number 9 as well. Then, the % of variance increased, but the Eigenvalue
assigned to the 9th dimension was lower than one, which is not acceptable.

Dimension
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Q3 0.841 0.114 -0.026 0.094 0.128 0.062 0.161 0.061
Q6 0.815 0.150 -0.009 0.120 0.063 0.017 0.005 0.017
Q4 0.792 0.114 0.177 0.055 0.179 0.051 0.026 0.012
Q13 0.758 0.110 -0.033 0.063 0.133 0.132 0.166 0.143
Q5 0.744 0.081 0.126 -0.053 0.112 0.011 -0.254 0.026
Q12 0.686 0.007 0.032 -0.027 0.426 0.397 -0.066 0.005
Q9 0.597 -0.001 0.130 0.074 0.429 0.278 -0.169 -0.139
Q15 0.119 0.834 0.051 -0.084 0.080 0.271 0.195 -0.088
Q16 0.160 0.819 0.142 0.058 -0.020 -0.089 -0.185 0.090
Q14 0.196 0.800 0.022 -0.066 -0.081 0.277 0.207 -0.173
Q17 0.054 0.772 0.104 -0.025 -0.061 0.119 0.011 0.288
Q18 0.047 0.673 0.149 0.008 0.270 0.355 -0.195 0.225
Q24 0.051 0.011 0.872 -0.076 -0.121 -0.076 0.052 0.060
Q25 0.022 0.114 0.854 0.072 0.076 0.135 -0.027 0.113
Q23 0.135 0.209 0.790 0.084 0.073 -0.012 0.150 0.047
Q10 0.170 -0.094 0.066 0.899 -0.008 0.016 -0.056 -0.014
Q1 0.059 0.012 0.029 0.889 0.000 0.001 -0.097 0.000
Q11 -0.001 0.006 -0.045 0.827 0.085 -0.024 0.104 0.026
Q8 0.374 0.019 0.024 0.095 0.867 0.009 -0.023 -0.016
Q7 0.416 0.016 -0.032 -0.005 0.827 0.056 0.098 -0.018
Q19 0.144 0.349 0.069 -0.040 0.159 0.814 -0.136 0.047
Q2 0.263 0.332 -0.058 0.031 -0.062 0.792 0.169 -0.056
Q22 0.041 0.005 0.598 -0.010 0.038 0.047 0.677 0.072
Q21 -0.005 0.081 0.502 -0.116 0.026 -0.082 0.567 0.430
Q20 0.145 0.162 0.220 0.032 -0.050 0.002 0.096 0.868
Note: Loadings higher than 0.40 are highlighted

Figure 15c. CATPCA – Loadings (coefficients)
Note: Using CATPCA, we reduced the number of variables from 25 to 8. In the

CATPCA context, the factors or dimensions are the new variables that will be entered
into a regression model and serve as explanatory variables (or independent variables).
On the left-hand side table in Figure 15c, we obtain each dimension’s values. On the
right-hand side table in Figure 15c, we highlight the values greater than 0.4, which are
the most influential for each dimension. Based on those values, we can name each
dimension.
Further readings on CATPCA

Linting, M. & Van der Kooij (2012). Nonlinear principal components analysis with
CATPCA: A tutorial. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(1), 12–25. [see
attached paper #12]

Kemalbay, G., & Korkmazoglu, O. B. (2014). Categorical principal component logistic

regression: A case study for housing loan approval. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 109, 730–736. [see attached paper #11]
Appendix
Reverse coded variables
Reverse coding commonly applies to survey items (i.e., questions) with “negative”
meaning. For instance,
a. When we try to validate the consistency of the survey participants’ answers, it is
common to rephrase a “positive” question in a “negative” way. Example:
1. I would like to have more quantitative methods courses in the DBA program
St. Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree St. Agree
1 2 3 4 5
2. I don’t believe that extra quantitative methods courses in the DBA program
would add any value to DBA candidates’ knowledge.
1 2 3 4 5
Let a DBA candidate answer “5” to question #1 and “1” to question #2. Both
answers convey the same meaning. Hence, they are consistent. However, the
scores are not consistent. Therefore, if we used correlation analysis, the
correlation coefficient would be very low. To tackle this problem, we should
reverse code question #2. Then, the scale would read:
5 4 3 2 1
After reverse coding, both answers and scores are consistent for both questions.

b. A survey item expressing a “negative” meaning, while most of the other items in
the same survey have “positive” meanings. Let the following questions:
1. I take responsibility of my decisions.
1 2 3 4 5
2. I prefer to avoid difficulties.

1 2 3 4 5
3. I have a clear plan for my future.

1 2 3 4 5
If the interviewee is responsible for his/her decisions, doesn’t try to avoid

difficulties, and has a clear plan for his/her future, the answers provided could
be “5”, “1”, “5”.
For consistency of the answers, and if we want to use factor analysis to identify
any possible factors (latent variables), where high correlations matter, it’s
better to reverse code the scale for question #2. The reversed scale would read
as follows:
5 4 3 2 1
The answers to the three questions would be: “5”, “5”, and “5”.
Reverse coding in SPSS

Figure 1Ap. Data set #26
Figure 2Ap. Data set #26 - Coding

Figure 3Ap. Data set #26 – Reverse-Coding procedure





Chapter 7 - Factor Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 7 - Factor Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Sharjah - DBA Quantitative Business Research Methods II

Chapter 7: Factor Analysis

Objective: Factor analysis is a variable reduction technique where a large number of

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 1

Further reading about the failures of factor analysis to reduce multicollinearity

Table 1. Sample questionnaire

Variables V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16 V17

Steps to apply Factor Analysis

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 2

Question: What is factor rotation, and why do we use it?

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 3

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 4

Factor Analysis – Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

Example: Data set #24 – Factor Analysis

Figure 1a. Data set #24

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 5

Figure 2a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis Assumptions

Figure 3a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis Assumptions

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 6

Figure 4a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis Assumptions

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 7

Figure 6a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis Assumptions – Normality

Figure 7a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 8

Figure 8a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis

Figure 9a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 9

Figure 10a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA

Figure 11a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA - Varimax

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 10

Figure 13a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 11

Figure 14a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA

Attention: if the overall KMO measure is ≤ 𝟎. 𝟓, then check the Anti-Image

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 12

Figure 15a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA

Figure 16a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 13

Figure 17a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 14

Figure 18a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA

Figure 19a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 15

Figure 20a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 16

Figure 21a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA

Figure 22a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 17

Figure 23a. Data set #24 – Factor analysis / PCA

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 18

Reporting: A Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was run on a five-question survey.

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 19

Factor Analysis – Principal Axis Factoring (PAF)

Another view to factor analysis

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 20

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 21

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 22

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 23

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 24

Dr. Panagiotis Zervopoulos 25

Factor Analysis – Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CATPCA)

The Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CATPCA) or Nonlinear Principal

Advantages of CATPCA over the standard PCA