This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]

On: 18 July 2013, At: 10:04

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality Assessment

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

Nonlinear Principal Components Analysis With CATPCA:

A Tutorial
a b
Mariëlle Linting & Anita van der Kooij
a
Child and Family Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands
b
Methods and Statistics in Psychology, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Published online: 16 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Marille Linting & Anita van der Kooij (2012) Nonlinear Principal Components Analysis With CATPCA: A
Tutorial, Journal of Personality Assessment, 94:1, 12-25, DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2011.627965

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.627965

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(1), 12–25, 2012
Copyright
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0022-3891 print / 1532-7752 online
DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2011.627965

STATISTICAL DEVELOPMENTS AND APPLICATIONS

Nonlinear Principal Components Analysis With

CATPCA: A Tutorial
MARIËLLE LINTING1 AND ANITA VAN DER KOOIJ2
1
Child and Family Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands
2
Methods and Statistics in Psychology, Leiden University, The Netherlands

This article is set up as a tutorial for nonlinear principal components analysis (NLPCA), systematically guiding the reader through the process
of analyzing actual data on personality assessment by the Rorschach Inkblot Test. NLPCA is a more flexible alternative to linear PCA that can
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 10:04 18 July 2013

handle the analysis of possibly nonlinearly related variables with different types of measurement level. The method is particularly suited to analyze
nominal (qualitative) and ordinal (e.g., Likert-type) data, possibly combined with numeric data. The program CATPCA from the Categories module
in SPSS is used in the analyses, but the method description can easily be generalized to other software packages.

The objective of this article is to familiarize applied researchers
with nonlinear principal components analysis (NLPCA), a
method developed to explore possibly nonlinear relational struc-
tures in data sets that might contain all types of (categorical and
numeric) variables. The article is set up as a tutorial that focuses
primarily on the application of the method and the interpretation
of results instead of on technical details.
NLPCA is an alternative to principal components analysis
(PCA; see, e.g., Jolliffe, 2002) that is particularly useful for
data sets containing variables with different measurement levels
(nominal, ordinal, or numeric) that might be nonlinearly related
to each other. The goal of NLPCA is equivalent to that of PCA,
namely to reduce a data set—typically consisting of many vari-
ables with complicated correlation patterns—to a smaller num-
ber of uncorrelated summary variables (principal components)
that represent the information in the data as closely as possi-
ble. This goal is achieved by finding a (small) number of linear
combinations that explain as much as possible of the variance
in the data, thereby revealing relational structures among the
observed variables. The difference between the methods is that
PCA can only reveal linear relationships, whereas NPLCA can
in addition reveal nonlinear relationships by quantifying cate-
gorical or nonlinearly related variables in a way that is optimal
(in a statistical sense) for the PCA goal.
The main advantages of NLPCA over standard PCA are its
ability to (a) deal with nonlinear relationships; (b) enable the
researcher to check multivariate linearity of relationships be-
tween the variables at hand (which might be particularly use-
ful for ordinal variables, such as Likert-type variables); and (c)
jointly analyze numeric, ordinal, and nominal variables. In other
words, NLPCA overcomes the main limitations of linear PCA,
that is, the assumption of linearity of relationships and the fact
that standard PCA solutions can only be interpreted sensibly
when all variables are considered numeric.
NLPCA output is comparable to PCA output, and includes
(a) eigenvalues, indicating the variance accounted for (VAF) by
each principal component; (b) component loadings, reflecting
correlations between the quantified variables and the princi-
pal components; (c) sums of squared component loadings per
variable over components (communalities), reflecting the con-
tributions of the quantified variables to the total VAF; and (d)
component scores for each case in the data set.
It is important to realize that when all variables in a data set are
considered numeric and relationships are considered to be linear,
PCA and NLPCA will render exactly the same results. Only
when the analysis includes variables specified by the researcher
as having a nominal or ordinal analysis level, NLPCA will deal
with nonlinear relationships. This specification need not concur
with the variable’s measurement level (see “Analysis Levels”
later in this article).
In this article, we refer to three types of measurement level:
1. Nominal variables consist of categories that classify cases
(persons or objects) into separate groups that are not hierar-
chically ordered. For instance, gender, religion, and ethnicity
are considered to be nominal variables.
2. Ordinal variables also consist of categories used to distin-
guish groups, but these categories have an ascending or de-
scending order, based on the degree to which a certain qual-
ity is present. Typically, categories are not assumed to be
equally spaced. For instance, educational degree, or values
on a (Likert-type) rating scale should be considered ordinal.1
3. Numeric variables are variables of which equally spaced ob-
served values represent equally spaced true values. This type
of variable is often divided into two subtypes: interval scales

Received June 22, 2010; Revised February 25, 2011. 1Note that Likert-type rating scales are often analyzed as numeric, assuming
Address correspondence to Mariëlle Linting, Child and Family Studies, Lei-
the categories to be equally spaced. However, such an a priori assumption might
den University, P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands; Email:
not be justified.
linting@fsw.leidenuniv.nl
12
 NONLINEAR PCA WITH CATPCA 13

(without an absolute zero point) and ratio scales (with an ab-

solute zero point). Numeric variables can be used directly in
statistical calculations. Examples are temperature (interval),
and reaction time (ratio).
In most literature, nominal and (sometimes) ordinal variables
are classified as categorical. However, numeric variables can
also be considered categorical variables with c categories (where
c is the number of distinct observed values).
Performing NLPCA is a dynamic process in which the re-
searcher takes an active part. The procedure typically exists of
several steps in which analysis results are evaluated and con-
sequently, analysis options are revised. The remainder of this
article consists of a more extensive discussion of the NLPCA
method, followed by a step-by-step description of this dynamic
analysis process on empirical Rorschach inkblot test data. Dif-
ferent analysis options and results are displayed, discussed, and
interpreted.
NLPCA was developed from a long history of contributions to
the field of categorical data analysis; see, for example, Guttman
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 10:04 18 July 2013

(1941), Kruskal (1965), Shepard (1966), Kruskal and Shepard
(1974), Young, Takane, and De Leeuw (1978), and Winsberg
and Ramsay (1983). For a historical overview, see Gifi (1990).
Currently, the method is available in the two major commercial
software packages: SAS (SAS Institute, 2009b) contains PRIN-
QUAL (SAS Institute, 2009a), and SPSS (SPSS, 2009) contains
CATPCA (Meulman, Heiser, & SPSS, 2009). Also, some re-
lated functions are available in R (R Development Core Team,
2005). In this article, we use CATPCA to illustrate the proce-
dure of analyzing data with NLPCA. This software is part of the
SPSS Categories module, and can be found under Dimension
Reduction, Optimal Scaling in the SPSS Analysis menu.
NLPCA METHOD
Model
The objective of NLPCA is dimension reduction—that is,
reducing a set of variables to a smaller number of principal
components—while taking into account (nonnumeric) measure-
ment levels and possible nonlinearity of relationships. In re-
search practice, different methods are used to obtain the goal
of dimension reduction, depending on the measurement level of
the variables. PCA is applied to variables with numeric mea-
surement level and multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) to
categorical variables. These methods employ different models,
called the vector model and centroid model, respectively. The
vector model depicts a variable as a straight line (vector), thus
representing a variable as a direction in the component space,
whereas the centroid model depicts a variable as a set of category
points (centroids).
Figure 1 shows a so-called category plot for a variable ana-
lyzed with the vector model. The squares representing the values
of the variable lie equally spaced and ordered on the variable
vector (gray line). The loading vector (black line) starts at the
origin and ends at the point with as coordinates the loadings on
each principal component. The length of this vector represents
the variable’s VAF.
Figure 2 is a so-called biplot, displaying a variable (here rep-
resented as category points) as well as case points, and providing
insight into the location of category points relative to the case
points. This plot shows a fictive example of the variable religion
analyzed with the centroid model. Each different marker type
FIGURE 1.—Variable vector (gray line) for a fictive variable with five values
(squares). The partial vector from the origin (open circle) to the loading point
(closed circle) indicates the variable’s variance is accounted for.
represents a different category. The closed markers represent
the category points of religion, and the open markers repre-
sent component scores (case points). With the centroid model, a
point representing a category in the principal components space
is located as closely as possible to each of the component scores
for the persons that scored in that category. In that way, a cate-
gory point can be interpreted as a group point, summarizing the
group of people that scored in that category. For instance, the
category point for “Catholic” (closed circle) lies in the center
of all Catholic persons (open circles), and thus represents the
group of Catholic people in the data set. Category points lying
close together in the plot are closely related. For example, the
categories Catholic and Protestant are close together, indicating
that people scoring these categories are quite alike in their scor-
ing patterns on the other variables in this data set. Component 1
distinguishes Muslims from the rest, and Component 2 makes a
distinction between Catholics and Protestants versus the rest.
In NLPCA, (a) it is possible to apply the vector model to some
variables and the centroid model to others, and (b) the vector
model can be generalized to ordinal and nominal variables, en-
abling the researcher to effectively analyze variables of differ-
ent measurement level within one analysis. Methodologically,
these features are established by, while performing dimension
reduction, transforming categories of variables with nominal
and ordinal analysis levels to numeric values. The method used
for this quantification process is called optimal scaling, with
optimal referring to the fact that the transformations are optimal
for the model that is fitted. Let P be the number of principal
components selected for the analysis (based on theory, possibly
combined with some statistical procedure; see Step 2d in the
“Application” section). Then, in NLPCA, optimal implies that
the first P components explain as much as possible of the vari-
ance in the transformed variables. This objective is obtained by
an iterative process that stops when a preset convergence crite-
rion is reached; that is, when the statistically optimal solution is
obtained. Technical details are irrelevant here, and can be found
in, for example, Linting, Meulman, Groenen, and Van der Kooij
 14
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 10:04 18 July 2013
FIGURE 2.—Category points (closed markers) for the fictive variable Religion
represented as centroids of component scores (open markers) for the persons
who scored each category.
(2007a), and Meulman, Van der Kooij, and Heiser (2004), and
Gifi (1990). Next, the optimal scaling procedure is conceptually
explained.
Optimal Scaling Graphically Explained
Optimal scaling can be pictured as a process that starts with
estimating category quantifications based on the centroid model,
and then, in accordance with the analysis level of a variable
(specified by the researcher), can impose restrictions on the
quantifications. In the centroid model, category quantifications
are coordinates of category points (see Figure 2), calculated for
each component as the mean of the component scores for the
persons that scored that category.
The centroid model is useful when the researcher is inter-
ested in the location of the separate categories in the principal
components space. Alternatively, the variable as a whole might
be of interest. Then, restricting the centroid points to lie on a
straight line—that is, applying the vector model—is appropri-
ate. Restriction of category points to a straight line is done by
perpendicular projection. Figure 3 is a Category plot, showing
such restriction of the category points from Figure 2. Projec-
tions (depicted in gray) are the restricted category points. The
category quantification is the distance on the vector from the
category point to the origin.
The variable vector in Figure 3 is the best fitting line through
the centroid points, which always runs through the origin and
the point with as coordinates the loadings on each principal
component (loading point). The loading vector (the black line
in Figures 1 and 3), starting at the origin and ending at the
loading point, represents the variable’s VAF.2 A loading vector
2In Figures 1 and 3 we have depicted the loading vector in the category
plot for didactic purposes. However, in actual output, the category vectors and
loading vectors are displayed in separate plots. Then, it is important to realize
that the importance of variables in the solution is indicated by the length of
the loading vector in the loadings plot (or table), and not by the length of the
variable vector in a category plot.
LINTING AND VAN DER KOOIJ
FIGURE 3.—Category plot for the fictive variable Religion with category points
restricted to be on a straight line (vector model). The distance on the line between
the category point and the origin equals the category quantification. When the
category point lies in the direction from the origin to the point representing the
component loadings, the quantification has a positive value. Otherwise, it has a
negative value.
points from the origin in the direction where the category with
the highest quantification is located, and the category with the
lowest quantification is somewhere beyond the origin in the
opposite direction; the origin signifies the mean of the quantified
variables.
The restricted category quantifications in Figure 3 are un-
ordered compared to the original category labels. Such un-
ordered quantifications are referred to as nominal quantifica-
tions, and can be restricted further in two ways: (a) the ordering
of the points is required to equal the ordering of the category
values, and (b) the points are required to be equally spaced.
When both of these restrictions are applied, the variable is an-
alyzed numerically, and the variable vector equals the vector
resulting from linear PCA. When only the first restriction is ap-
plied, the variable is analyzed at an ordinal analysis level. Thus,
NLPCA generalizes the vector model to variables of nominal
and ordinal analysis level, which is further explained in the next
section.
ANALYSIS LEVELS
One of the most important decisions for researchers applying
NLPCA is the specification of a nominal, ordinal, or numeric
analysis level for each variable in the data set (also see Linting
et al., 2007a). A variable’s analysis level is not necessarily equal
to its measurement level, but is based on the researcher’s pref-
erences. The opportunity to specify analysis levels in NLPCA
allows the researcher to (a) analyze variables in accordance with
their measurement level, and (b) discover and handle nonlinear
relationships, also between numeric variables.
The analysis level specified determines the amount of free-
dom allowed in transforming category values (labels) to cat-
egory quantifications. When the centroid model is applied, a
category quantification is the centroid of the component scores
of the persons that scored that category, which allows the
 NONLINEAR PCA WITH CATPCA
FIGURE 4.—Nominal (a) and ordinal (b) quantifications of the fictive variable Religion.
maximum amount of freedom. The centroid model is applied
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 10:04 18 July 2013
to a variable when the researcher specifies a multiple nominal
analysis level. All other analysis levels in NLPCA specify the
vector (PCA) model (see Figures 1 and 3). Out of the levels us-
ing the vector model, the nominal level allows the most freedom
in quantifying the variables, followed by the ordinal and then the
numeric level (applied in linear PCA). Only when nominal or
ordinal analysis levels are specified, NLPCA is allowed enough
freedom to reveal, respectively, nonmonotonic and monotonic
nonlinear relationships between variables.
The researcher should keep in mind that allowing the quan-
tification process more freedom could have the downside of
capitalization on chance (i.e., possible sampling instability, es-
pecially with small samples). Stability of the NLPCA solution
can be checked using the nonparametric bootstrap approach
(Linting, Meulman, Groenen, & Van der Kooij, 2007b). Apart
from stability issues, nonlinear analysis levels (especially nom-
inal) could complicate interpretation. So, when no nonlinear re-
lationships between variables are found with the least restricted
analysis levels, it is advisable to repeat the analysis, using more
restricted analysis levels.
Transformation Plots
Researchers might gain insight into (nonlinearity of) rela-
tionships among variables by inspecting transformation plots.
Such plots display the category numbers on the x axis and their
quantifications on the y axis, and thus show the shape of the
transformation, which gives insight into the relationship be-
tween the variable at hand and the other variables in the data
set. For example, Figure 4a displays the transformation plot
for the variable from Figure 3, revealing the nonlinear pattern
of the relationship between religion and the other variables in
the data set: The distinction between Categories 1 (Catholic)
and 2 (Protestant) on the one side and Categories 3 (Muslim),
4 (Jewish), and 5 (other) on the other side especially stands
out. The difference between Muslims and Protestants regarding
their scoring patterns on the other variables is the largest (given
that the category points are restricted to be on a straight line).
The variable Religion in Figure 4a has a nominal analysis level,
which is explained next, along with the other analysis levels
using the vector model.
15
Nominal Analysis Level
Specifying a nominal analysis level is advisable when the
researcher is interested in possible nonmonotonic nonlinear re-
lationships between the variable at hand and other variables in
the data set. This is typically the case when a variable has a
nominal measurement level, but could also occur for ordinal or
numeric variables. For instance, the numeric variable number
of car accidents might be nonmonotonically related to a (cat-
egorized) variable regarding age, with young and old people
causing more accidents than middle-aged people. Thus, high
values on number of car accidents go together with both high
and low values of age. Such a relationship will only be revealed
if a nominal analysis level is specified for either age or number
of car accidents.
Interpretation of nominal quantifications is the most straight-
forward when a specific nonlinear pattern is present in the data.
For instance, when Age is nominally analyzed concurrently with
number of car accidents, the transformation plot for age will
show a U-shape: low quantified values for the middle age cate-
gories and high quantified values for both the lower and higher
age categories. For variables with a nominal measurement level,
category order is irrelevant, and thus we cannot speak of a spe-
cific nonlinear pattern of the quantifications with regard to the
original category order. Then, multiple nominal (centroid) quan-
tifications are more insightful than nominal (vector) quantifica-
tions. Also, centroid quantification might be preferable when
the unrestricted category points in a category plot (e.g., Figure
3) lie far away from the variable vector. The distances from the
centroid points to the projected points on the line give an indi-
cation of the “cost” (in terms of fit) of restriction of the category
points to a straight line.
Ordinal Analysis Level
Specifying an ordinal level is advisable when the researcher is
interested in nonlinearity of relationships, but wishes to maintain
the category order in the quantifications on theoretical grounds
or for the sake of interpretation. That is, with an ordinal anal-
ysis level, the order of the categories on the variable vector is
immediately clear, without consulting the category plot. The
fact that the ordinal analysis level forces the order of the cate-
gory numbers on the quantifications might, of course, have the
 16
drawback that nonmonotonic relationships between variables
remain undiscovered.
Ordinal quantifications are obtained by restricting the nomi-
nal quantifications in the following way. If for two consecutive
category labels the nominal quantifications are in a descending
order, the ordinal quantification is restricted to the weighted
mean of the two nominal quantifications (with as weights the
category frequencies); if this mean is lower than the quantifica-
tion for the consecutive category, the ordinal quantification is
the weighted mean of the three nominal quantifications, and so
on.3 Figure 4b shows the ordinal quantification of the religion
variable from Figures 2 and 3. Because Categories 1 and 2 as
well as 3 and 4 are in the “wrong” order on the vector, they
receive equal ordinal quantifications (i.e., the weighted mean of
the two nominal quantifications). Note that, in practice, ordinal
quantification would not be advised for the religion variable,
because there is no reason to assume relations between religion
and other variables to be monotonic.
Numeric Analysis Level
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 10:04 18 July 2013
If the researcher is not interested in nonlinear relationships
between the variables, a numeric analysis level can be specified.
This type of analysis level requires an extra restriction on top
of the ordinal quantification: Not only the category order, but
also the distances between categories have to be maintained in
the quantification process. Applying this additional restriction
renders a transformation plot showing a straight line.4 When
a numeric analysis level is specified for all variables in the
analysis, NLPCA will give exactly the same result as standard
PCA.
Spline Nominal and Ordinal Analysis Levels
If a variable has many categories (as, e.g., a continuous vari-
able), and the researcher is interested in nonlinear relationships
between that variable and other variables, nominal and ordinal
analysis levels might lead to very irregular quantifications (go-
ing wildly up and down in the transformation plot) that lack in-
sightfulness and stability. Alternatively, a more restrictive spline
ordinal or spline nominal analysis level can be specified.
Roughly explained, a spline transformation is obtained by di-
viding the x axis of the transformation plot into a user-specified
number of intervals and in each interval a separate transforma-
tion curve is fitted (e.g., a second-degree polynomial, that is, a
quadratic curve). These separate curves are joined at the inter-
val boundaries (called internal knots). The smoothness of the
resulting curve can be influenced by the user by specifying the
number of internal knots (and thereby the number of intervals)
and the degree of the function (influencing the smoothness of
the joining of the curves at the knots): More intervals and a
higher degree diminish smoothness and increase freedom of the
transformation. When the degree is set to 1 (straight line) and
3As this restriction is imposed on the quantifications in each iteration of the
optimal scaling process, the final result of ordinal quantification is not equal to
the result of directly applying the order restriction to the final nominal category
quantifications.
4For a variable with numerical analysis level, the quantifications can be more
easily obtained by simply standardizing the observed variable (as in linear PCA).
However, we indicate how they can be obtained by optimal scaling for didactic
purposes.
LINTING AND VAN DER KOOIJ
the number of interior knots to 0 (one interval), a spline transfor-
mation equals the numeric transformation (standardization) of
a variable. When the degree is set to 1 with the number of inte-
rior knots equal to the number of categories minus 2, the spline
transformation equals the nominal or ordinal transformation of
the variable. For more information on splines, see Winsberg and
Ramsay (1983), and specifically on splines in CATPCA, see
Linting et al. (2007a). The remainder of this article consists of
a step-by-step application of NLPCA to an empirical data set in
which we use spline analysis levels.
APPLICATION: NLPCA STEP-BY-STEP
The Data
The data analyzed in this study consist of 378 outpatients
who undertook the Rorschach inkblot test at the University of
Tennessee (Meyer, 2000). The Rorschach test involves asking
respondents to react to a standard set of 10 inkblot stimuli. Re-
sponses are coded and interpreted for personality assessment.
In the University of Tennessee sample, the Rorschach was ad-
ministered and scored using the Comprehensive System (Exner,
1986, 1991). Final scores indicate the number of times a partic-
ular type of response was given across all 10 inkblot cards. The
total number of responses across cards is recorded as R.
In a linear factor analytic study on a sample of 268 volunteer
college students, Meyer (1992b) found four main dimensions
(components): The first dimension mainly reflected the strong
relationship between the frequency of particular responses and
the general response frequency R; the second dimension re-
flected the respondent’s depth of cognitive and affective en-
gagement; the third was a holistic nonform-dominant color and
shading dimension; and the fourth was a dimension of form-
dominant shading determinants. In the study described in this
article, the variables selected for analysis differ from Meyer’s,
because we use a selection procedure based on CATPCA results.
However, because our selection contains variables from most of
Meyer’s dimensions, we expect to find at least some substantive
similarities between solutions.
Meyer (1992a) reported that across factor-analytic studies of
the Rorschach, the first (and sometimes second) dimension was
consistently dominated by response frequency R. The domi-
nance of R over at least one dimension can be evaluated as an
artifact, only revealing the trivial relationship between giving
many responses in general and obtaining high scores on specific
variables: If people obtain high scores on many variables, they
automatically obtain a high total response frequency. Also note
that, because of differences in R between respondents, scores
within a particular variable are not directly comparable: A score
of 10 on a particular determinant means something different for
a person with an R of 50 (20%) than it does for a person with
an R of 20 (50%). Other problems with R were described by
Meyer (1992a).
As a solution to R being confounded with other variables, thus
complicating interpretation of results, we decided to divide all
Rorschach scores by R. Thus, we obtain relative instead of raw
frequencies. After dividing by R, the relations between the other
variables and R are no longer trivial, but have substantive mean-
ing. For instance, before dividing by R, the correlation between
Populars (commonly seen response) and R was .17, indicating
that there is a weak tendency for respondents who give more
responses to the cards in general to give more popular responses
 NONLINEAR PCA WITH CATPCA
(which is quite obvious). After dividing by R, however, the cor-
relation between Populars and R becomes –.48, indicating that
respondents who give many responses tend to give relatively few
popular responses (which is much more informative, indicating
that respondents who give more responses to the cards are more
likely to give fanciful interpretations). So, dividing by R renders
more insightful correlations than using the raw frequencies. As
response frequency has been given interpretative significance in
the literature (see Meyer, 1992a), R is included as a variable
in the analyses, enabling interpretation of substantive relations
between R and other scores.
In the following sections, we give a step-by-step descrip-
tion of the way we analyzed the University of Tennessee
(UT) sample (after dividing the scores by R) using the pro-
gram CATPCA (SPSS). In the preliminary analysis, besides R,
we include the 66 Rorschach variables described in Table 1.
From the 90 available Rorschach variables, we summed four
pairs of variables with similar content (resulting in variables
52 –55 in Table 1), and excluded 19 content variables that
were rarely scored (including, e.g., blood, botany, and explo-
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 10:04 18 July 2013
sion). These uncommon content variables were used to com-
pute one nominal variable indicating the most frequently used
uncommon content variable for each respondent (see Table 2).
This variable is included as supplementary multiple nominal
variable in the final step of the NLPCA, which has didactical
relevance. In addition, computing this extra variable is statis-
tically sensible: A large number of very rare responses were
replaced by one variable with substantial marginal frequencies.
NLPCA Step 1: Univariate Data Examination
The first step in the data-analytic process is univariate exam-
ination of the data at hand, which should precede any type of
analysis. Although NLPCA does not make univariate assump-
tions about the data, and skewness of distributions in itself need
not be a problem, categories with very low frequencies might
cause instability of the NLPCA solution, or might have too
much influence in the quantification process. Such categories
could be merged with an adjacent category beforehand. The
minimum number of observations per category needed for sta-
bility might vary across data sets. Stability of the solution can be
checked using the nonparametric bootstrap (Efron & Tibshirani,
1993; Linting et al., 2007b). In general, based on simulations,
Markus (1994) advises a bottom threshold of 8.
Transformation plots in CATPCA also give an indication
whether a category with small marginal frequency causes a
problem. If the plot shows a clearly outstanding quantification
for a category with small marginal frequency, the variable’s
quantification is dominated by the contrast between the one or
few objects scoring the concerning category and all other per-
sons. Such domination is undesirable because it prevents us
from finding possibly more interesting discrimination among
the other objects. In such cases, either the object(s) scoring the
dominant category should be excluded, or categories should
be merged. The main implication of merging categories is that
the original (separate) categories cannot be distinguished from
each other in the interpretation. However, as at least one of the
separate categories was scored by very few persons, one might
question whether the distinction was of interest to begin with.
In the UT sample, all of the 90 available Rorschach variables
show significant positive skewness and kurtosis values. Small
17
marginal frequencies are common, with the majority of respon-
dents not scoring a certain variable at all, and only some respon-
dents scoring it a few times. Therefore, merging of adjoining
categories with small marginal frequencies can be considered
(see Step 3).
NLPCA Step 2: Specifying Preliminary Analysis Options
The second part of the analysis process is the multivariate in-
spection of the data, which is best started by analyzing the data
at the least restricted analysis levels viable for the variables at
hand. For each variable in the data set, the researcher can specify
an analysis level appropriate for the research objectives, regard-
less of the measurement level of the variable. Strong correlations
between analysis variables are not a problem in (NL)PCA.
Step 2a: Initial analysis levels. Rorschach data have been
analyzed with standard PCA or factor analysis in the past. Thus,
to obtain comparable results we quantify the data according
to the vector model, choosing a nominal scaling level because
we do not want to preclude either monotonic or nonmonotonic
nonlinear relationships between the variables. In addition, the
variables have many categories, so spline transformation is ad-
visable. Accordingly, we start with specifying a spline nominal
analysis level for all variables in the data set. We use the default
settings for the number of interior knots (2, meaning the data are
divided into three intervals) and degree of the spline (2, meaning
the function estimated in each data interval is quadratic).
Step 2b: Missing options. Unlike the calculation process
in linear PCA, the NLPCA calculation process is not based on
the correlation matrix, but on the data itself. Therefore, missing
data can be treated in a more sophisticated way than in linear
PCA by simply excluding only the cells in the data matrix con-
taining missing values from the calculation process, without the
need for pairwise or listwise deletion. This type of treatment
of missing data is called Passive in CATPCA and is the default
option. The advantage of using Passive is that all available data
are used in the analysis without “fabricating” extra data. To
find out whether persons with missing values are different from
others, Missing can also be included in CATPCA as an extra
category. Independent of the analysis level of the variable, the
Missing category will obtain an optimal nominal quantification.
If that quantification is very different from the other quantifica-
tions, this indicates that persons scoring a missing value are a
special group, not comparable to the other respondents. When
missing values are at random, there will be only slight differ-
ences between solutions with missing Passive and missing Extra
category.
Regardless, the UT data do not contain missing values and
missing treatment is irrelevant here. Note that CATPCA treats
values of 0 as missing, so if raw data are analyzed, zeros should
be recoded. An alternative is to use a discretizing option de-
scribed next.
Step 2c: Discretizing. The program CATPCA requires
(positive) integer valued data. This is merely a technical require-
ment, not inherent to the method of NLPCA. To transform the
values of continuous variables to integers, the researcher might
use some computational procedure (e.g., rounding) prior to data
analysis, but alternatively and more conveniently, a Discretizing
option can be specified within CATPCA.
 18 LINTING AND VAN DER KOOIJ

TABLE 1.—Description of the 66 Rorschach variables in the analysis.

Type of Response Variables: Name (Description)

Location 1. W (whole card) 2. D (common detail) 3. Dd (unusual detail)

4. Space (use of white space)
Developmental Quality 5. DQv (vague perception)
8. DQp (related objects)
Organization 9. Zf (organizational frequency)
Form Quality 11. FQxp (unusually detailed form quality)
14. FQxm (form that does not fit)
Movement 16. M (human movement)
19. active (energetic movement)
Chromatic Color 21. FC (color secondary to form)
24. Cn (only color naming)
Achromatic Color 25. FC’ (achromatic color secondary to
form)
Texture 28. FT (texture secondary to form)
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 10:04 18 July 2013
6. DQo (ordinary object)
10. Zd (difference Zf - expected frequency)
12. FQxo (ordinary form quality)
15. FQxnone (no form quality)
17. FM (animal movement)
20. passive (less active than “talking”)
22. CF (form secondary to color)
26. C’F (form secondary to achromatic
color)
29. TF (form secondary to texture)
7. DQvp (vague related percepts)
13. FQxu (unusual form that fits)
18. m (inanimate movement)
23. C (pure color, no form present)
27.C’ (pure achromatic color, no form)
30. T (pure texture)

Vista – Depth 31. FV (depth secondary to form) 32. VF (form secondary to depth) 33. V (pure depth)
Diffuse Shading 34. FY (diffuse shading secondary to form) 35. YF (form secondary to diffuse shading) 36. Y (pure diffuse shading)
Reflections 37. Fr (reflection secondary to form) 38. rF (form secondary to reflection) 39. FD (dimensionality secondary to
form)
40. F (form alone)
41. Blends (>1 from m through fd) 42. Pair (2 identical percepts) 43. Popular (commonly seen response)
Content 44. H (real human) 45. (H) (fictional human) 46. Hd (human detail)
47. (Hd) (fictional human detail) 48. A (real animal) 49. (A) (fictional animal)
50. ad (animal detail) 51. (Ad) (fictional animal detail)
Cognitive Special Scores 52. Any DV (deviant verbalization, 1+2) 53. Any INC (disorganized concept, 1+2) 54. Any DR (deviant response, 1+2)
55. Any FAB (fabulized combination, 1+2) 56. Contam (merging of 2 percepts) 57. PSV (perseveration)
58. ALOG (autistic logic)
Other Special Scores 59. AB (abstract content) 60. AG (aggressive movement) 61. COP (cooperative movement)
62. GoodHR (good human representation) 63. PoorHR (poor human representation) 64. MOR (morbid content)
65. PER (personal knowledge) 66. CP (color projection)

Note. Variables shown in italics were not selected for the final analyses.

The discretizing option Multiplying is advised when continu-

ous variables are analyzed numerically. It leaves all characteris-
tics of the observed variable intact, by standardizing, then mul-
TABLE 2.—Frequency table of nominal variable indicating a respondent’s most
tiplying all values by 10, rounding, and adding a constant such frequently mentioned uncommon content (N = 378).
that 1 is the lowest resulting integer value. The option Ranking
is advised for continuous variables that will be treated (spline) Category Frequency %
ordinally or nominally. It replaces observed values by their rank
number, thus discarding the distances between observed values An (anatomy) 42 11.1
Art (artistic) 21 5.6
(which is inherent to ordinal and nominal treatment). Finally, Ay (anthropology) 12 3.2
the Grouping option can be used when the researcher wishes to Bl (blood) 1 0.3
decrease the number of categories of a variable prior to NLPCA Bt (botany) 49 13.0
(which might increase stability of results, but, of course, has Cg (clothing) 56 14.8
implications for interpretation, as the original categories cannot Cl (clouds) 2 0.5
Ex (explosion) 1 0.3
be interpreted separately). Food (food) 8 2.1
The Rorschach data divided by R are continuous values (pro- Fi (fire) 3 0.8
portions). As we specified a spline nominal analysis level for all Geog (map) 5 1.3
variables in the data set, and do not wish to limit the number of Hh (household item) 28 7.4
Hx (human experience) 10 2.6
categories a priori, the discretizing option Ranking is appropri- Ls (landscape) 32 8.5
ate. R itself is integer valued and thus needs no discretization. Na (nature) 28 7.4
Sc (science) 19 5.0
Step 2d: Number of components. In linear PCA, the num- Sx (sex) 16 4.2
Xy (x-ray) 4 1.1
ber of components chosen for analysis is only relevant for in- Idio (other content) 41 10.8
terpretation. In NLPCA, however, the number of components
 NONLINEAR PCA WITH CATPCA
also affects analysis results, because, with optimal scaling, the
eigenvalues of the first P components are maximized (with P the
number of components specified by the user). Thus, for instance,
the two components in a two-dimensional solution are not equal
to the first two components of a three-dimensional solution (i.e.,
solutions are not nested; also see Linting et al., 2007a). Conse-
quently, when choosing the number of components, results from
different dimensionalities should be compared. In this context,
scree plots might be helpful tools.
In Step 3d, we show an actual example of the use of scree
plots to select the final number of components. In the current
step, we investigate scree plots for four-, five-, six-, and seven-
dimensional NLPCA solutions with all variables at a nominal
analysis level, which consistently show an elbow at the sec-
ond and the sixth component (not shown for sake of concise-
ness). This result suggests that a maximum of seven compo-
nents should be considered. We use the nonparametric bootstrap
(Efron & Tibshirani, 1993; Linting et al., 2007b; Timmerman,
Kiers, & Smilde, 2007) to examine the significance of the load-
ings on the first seven components, and find that on the seventh
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 10:04 18 July 2013
component, all of the 95% confidence intervals contain the value
zero, indicating that none of the loadings are significant at a two-
sided significance level of .05. In addition to statistical grounds,
interpretability should be a criterion in choosing the number of
components. As interpretation of the seventh component is also
unclear, we set the number of components at six.
NLPCA Step 3: Preliminary Analysis and Adjustment of
Analysis Options
The six-component NLPCA solution on 67 Rorschach vari-
ables analyzed at a spline nominal level with discretizing option
Ranking is first examined for outliers. After removing outliers,
variables that contribute substantially to the solution are selected
for further analysis. Then, the data are reexamined for outliers
and analysis options are evaluated.
Step 3a: Examine the solution for outliers. Outliers will
affect variable fit. Therefore, prior to variable selection based on
fit (see Step 3b), it is important to make sure that the solution is
not dominated by outliers. Outliers in the NLPCA solution are
cases that obtain component scores (called “object scores” in
CATPCA) that lie at a large distance from the other component
scores in the principal component space. As component scores
are standard scores, one might consider scores roughly exceed-
ing the range of –3.5 through 3.5 outliers. The most insightful
way to detect outliers is by looking at plots of the compo-
nent scores (“Object plots” in CATPCA). For instance, Figure
5 shows that case number 155 is an outlier on the fourth com-
ponent. In fact, this case is also an outlier on the second, fifth,
and sixth components. Case 303 is an outlier on the second and
fourth components. Both outliers are excluded from the analysis
used for variable selection. The other component scores do not
defer much from the main scatter. We repeat the analysis with
376 cases to check for possible newly occurring outliers, which
are not present.
Step 3b: Variable selection. Because the Rorschach data
consist of a large number of variables, we want to exclude
variables with bad fit from the analysis, for sake of legibility of
the output (i.e., interpretability). As variables with bad fit do not
19
FIGURE 5.—Object plot depicting component scores on Components 1 and 4.
contribute much to the solution, eliminating them will barely
affect the total fit of the solution.
VAF is the most important indication of fit, both for the prin-
cipal components, and for the quantified variables, and should
thus be considered main criterion in variable selection. VAF by
the principal components across variables is represented by the
eigenvalues. Proportion of VAF by a component is its eigen-
value divided by the number of analysis variables. Eigenvalues
and percentage VAF can be found in the Model Summary ta-
ble in CATPCA.5 VAF by each component in each separate
variable is given in the VAF table. For variables analyzed ac-
cording to the vector model—(spline) nominal, (spline) ordinal,
or numeric—these values are the squared component loadings.
The sum of VAF over components (last column) is the total VAF
of the variable (communality).
For variable selection we look at total VAF in the variables
(communalities): Variables with total VAF of .25 or higher are
selected for the final analysis. That is, at least 25% of the vari-
ance in a quantified variable is explained across the principal
components. Comrey (1973) gives the following rules of thumb
for VAF in a variable per component: 10% is poor, 20% is fair,
30% is good, 40% is very good, and 50% is excellent. As we
aim for at least fair VAF across components, a criterion of 25%
seems reasonable. The VAF criterion used should be dependent
on the research question and data set at hand. For instance, if
data refer to a specific physical phenomenon that is measurable
with a small amount of error, the VAF that would be expected
and required would be much higher than the 25% criterion used
here. Based on the 25% criterion, all variables shown in italics
in Table 1 are excluded from further analysis. We continue the
analysis with 42 variables.
In Step 2d, we used significance of loadings, assessed by the
nonparametric bootstrap, as a statistical criterion to include or
5Note that, when missing option Passive is used, the Model Summary table
does not include percentage VAF values, because in that case, proportion VAF is
not exactly equal to the eigenvalue divided by the number of analysis variables.
However, when the number of missings is not very large, this value still gives a
proper indication of proportion VAF.
 20
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 10:04 18 July 2013
FIGURE 6.—Scree plot with lines indicating the eigenvalues for Components 1 through 15 for a four-, five-, six-, and seven-dimensional CATPCA solution on 42
selected Rorschach variables analyzed at a spline nominal level (degree = 2, number of interior knots = 2).
exclude components. Note that the same procedure could be
used as a first step in variable selection. Alternatively, permu-
tation tests can be applied to assess p values for the loadings
(Linting, Van Os, & Meulman, 2011). However, even when such
a statistical procedure is used, effect size (VAF value) should
remain the main criterion for variable inclusion.
Step 3c: Reexamine for outliers. Because the outliers
previously excluded might have obtained outlying component
scores based on variables not in the final selection, we examine
the 42-variable solution for all 378 cases for outliers. We iden-
tify and remove two other outliers than in the analysis with 67
variables. (Cases 155 and 303 are no longer outliers, after the
variables based on which they obtained outlying scores were
removed from the analysis.) The analysis is continued with 376
cases.
Step 3d: Evaluate number of components. After selection
of variables and cases, we evaluate the number of components
LINTING AND VAN DER KOOIJ
by looking at scree plots of the eigenvalues in four-, five-, six-,
and seven-dimensional solutions.6 Figure 6 shows scree plots
for these four solutions.7 In each plot, a slight “elbow” shows
at the P+1th component, with P the number of components
specified by the user. This is a logical result of the optimal scal-
ing process, because its objective is optimizing the eigenvalues
of the first P components. Overall, the actual scree in the plot
consistently starts after the sixth component, indicating that a
six-dimensional solution is the most appropriate. (Again, this
could be checked with the bootstrap or permutations.)
Step 3e: Evaluate analysis levels. After the variable selec-
tion and determination of number of components, the choice of
analysis levels for the variables can be evaluated by examining
6Remember that it is necessary to look at scree plots in different dimension-
alities, because NLPCA solutions are not nested.
7Eigenvalues are from the bottom row of the Correlations transformed vari-
ables table.
 NONLINEAR PCA WITH CATPCA
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 10:04 18 July 2013
FIGURE 7.—Transformation plots for four Rorschach variables, analyzed at a spline nominal level. (a) A typical linear pattern; (b) a typical nonmonotonic
(nonlinear) pattern; (c and d) two typical examples of monotonic nonlinear patterns.
transformation plots. In Figure 7, four exemplary transformation
plots are depicted. The plots show rank numbers on the x axis,
because Ranking was used as a discretizing option. The almost
straight line in Figure 7a indicates that variable W is practically
linearly related to the other variables in the data set. Figure 7b
shows an approximately reversed U-shape for variable Y, in-
dicating that persons in the low and high categories are alike,
considering their scoring pattern on the other variables, and dif-
fer in the same way from the persons in the middle categories.
Figure 7c shows that CF is approximately linearly related to
the other variables but the curve levels off at the categories 20
through 30 and at the highest categories, meaning that persons
within those categories are much alike in their scoring pattern
on the other variables. The quantification of the variable FQu in
Figure 7d shows a lot of tied values for the middle categories.
If a transformation plot shows a pattern like in Figure 7a, the
variable could just as well be analyzed numerically. If it shows
a pattern like in Figure 7b, the variable is best analyzed at a
(spline) nominal level. If it shows a pattern like in Figure 7c, the
variable is best analyzed (spline) ordinally. However, if the cat-
egories for which the transformation curve levels off have low
frequencies, or if the total VAF of the variable is low, the results
when choosing a numeric level will only slightly differ from the
results with a (spline) ordinal level for this variable. The plateau
in the transformation of the variable in Figure 7d indicates that
the persons scoring these categories cannot be structurally dis-
tinguished from each other based on their scoring patterns on
the other variables. As the curve is monotonic, ordinal treatment
would be appropriate here.
21
Plateaus such as in Figure 7d might also occur when an ordi-
nal analysis level is applied. In that case, a nominal level should
be applied instead to investigate the cause of the plateau. If, as
in Figure 7d, the categories in the plateau obtain equal or very
similar nominal quantifications, ordinal treatment is appropri-
ate. If, alternatively, the quantifications go up and down in the
nominal transformation plot, tied values are caused by forcing
an ordinal restriction on the quantifications (as described in the
section on ordinal analysis levels). In such cases, nominal treat-
ment is more appropriate than ordinal treatment, except when
the nominal quantifications are very irregular or when the cat-
egories that are in a nonincreasing order have low frequencies.
In the latter situations, the VAF of the nominal and ordinal solu-
tions should be examined. If there is only a small difference, a
(spline) ordinal level is preferable over a nominal level, because
it will give more stable results.
This application illustrates that transformation plots can
be useful tools in two ways: (a) they give insight into the
nature of relationships between variables, and (b) they indicate
which categories are useful for distinguishing people from
each other, which could have implications for future data
collection. If, for example, a Likert scale variable with five
categories (from totally agree through totally disagree) shows
a nominal transformation that looks like Figure 4b, it can be
concluded that there is only a distinction between the first two
and the last three categories. So, in future data collection, this
variable could be reduced to two categories. Merging the first
two and last three categories for this variable will not change
the solution much, because two quantified values will result
 22 LINTING AND VAN DER KOOIJ

that each will not differ much from the quantified values of TABLE 3.—Rotated component loadings from a six-dimensional CATPCA on
the corresponding original (unmerged) categories, as these 42 Rorschach variables, with all variables analyzed ordinally.
values were already close together. However, merging such Component
categories has the advantage of rendering more concise output 1 2 3 4 5 6
and possibly more stable results (Linting et al., 2007b).
Apart from transformation plots, information on the VAF FM .735 .039 −.143 −.149 −.037 −.176
could aid the researcher in making a final decision on the analy- Active .713 .135 .274 .043 .165 −.011
sis levels of the variables. If granting the method more freedom DQ+ .670 .223 .436 −.101 .102 −.006
does not lead to a substantial increase in VAF, the researcher F −.655 −.160 −.140 .002 −.475 −.122
Blends .619 .198 .083 .042 .523 .119
could decide to use more restricted analysis levels, for the sake DQo −.605 −.223 −.369 .129 −.042 −.334
of stability and simpler interpretation of relations between quan- Any FAB .519 .001 .008 .175 −.109 −.016
tified variables. With all variables at a spline nominal level, the Passive .506 .019 .203 −.011 .108 −.006
VAF across components is 51.36%, which means that all six AG .474 .027 .206 .249 .067 .017
m .373 .173 −.099 .085 .360 .161
principal components together explain 51% of the variance in Any DR .323 .097 −.091 .232 .090 .308
the 42 quantified Rorschach variables. In a psychological con- W .159 .914 .124 −.101 .078 .082
text this might be considered a reasonable value. The majority of D −.134 −.808 −.135 −.081 −.182 −.123
the variables show a monotonic transformation curve. When we Zf .358 .788 .291 −.062 .163 −.092
analyze the variables that show a nonmonotonic transformation Pair .227 −.536 .411 −.142 −.166 −.125
Dd −.107 −.530 −.037 .344 .137 .041
curve (C’F, VF, Y, (HD), and Any Fab12) at a spline nominal and MOR .300 .347 −.031 .239 −.092 .092
the other variables at a spline ordinal level (degree 2, number of −.070 .019 .829 −.311 .101 −.076
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 10:04 18 July 2013

Good HR
interior knots 2), the VAF becomes 51.28%. Finally, when we H .104 .110 .727 −.051 .066 .068
analyze all variables spline ordinally, the VAF is 50.69%. This M .522 .084 .684 .152 .091 .031
(H) .176 .077 .496 .126 −.091 −.064
shows that allowing for nominal transformations does not give a COP .212 .055 .493 −.108 .021 −.120
large improvement in VAF over ordinal transformations, which FQ− .130 .189 −.118 .722 −.178 .048
indicates that the variables showing a nonmonotonic transfor- FQo −.124 −.109 .215 −.702 −.237 −.153
mation curve do not have much weight in the solution (also see Poor HR .431 −.051 .304 .683 −.016 .098
their component loadings). We decide to analyze all variables Popular .079 .067 .320 −.553 −.276 −.026
Hd .019 −.217 .189 .528 −.130 .030
at a spline ordinal level, because of simpler interpretation. As R −.076 −.362 −.177 .520 .217 .049
none of the transformation plots show extreme category quan- C’F .111 .037 −.011 .033 .543 .096
tifications, merging categories is not necessary. FQu .037 −.062 −.086 .126 .523 −.138
Space −.140 .350 .006 .263 .493 −.050
NLPCA Step 4: Final Analysis and Interpretation CF .217 .239 .044 −.061 .476 .116
Zd .058 .329 .161 .048 .464 −.039
Before running the final analysis, Step 3 of the process can A .254 −.111 −.387 −.359 −.433 −.283
be repeated several times, until reaching the final decision about (Hd) −.100 −.067 .163 .043 .425 −.015
the analysis options. When these final options are specified, we FC’ .139 .009 −.160 −.130 .377 −.135
VF .124 −.096 .029 −.236 .346 .018
get to the final conclusions about the data at hand. In this case, FQnone −.115 .006 −.098 −.054 −.067 .843
we analyze the 42 remaining Rorschach variables all at a spline DQv −.102 −.013 −.133 −.054 −.125 .772
ordinal level (degree 2, number of interior knots 2). Annotated C .051 .119 .016 .074 −.081 .757
syntax for this final analysis is in the Appendix. Y .089 −.116 −.013 .150 .152 .496
AB .166 .189 .131 .178 .107 .423
Step 4a: Variance accounted for. The total VAF across the
Note. Loadings higher than .40 are shown in bold.
six components is 50.69%, with a clearly dominant first com-
ponent (VAF: Component 1 = 18.01%, Component 2 = 9.64%,
Component 3 = 7.21%, Component 4 = 6.14%, Component 5 objects). Rotated Component 2 gives a contrast between using
= 5.16%, Component 6 = 4.53%). This means that the six se- the whole card and using specific details (both common and
lected components explain about 51% of the variance in the 42 uncommon). Rotated Component 3 is all about normal, posi-
spline ordinally quantified Rorschach variables, which indicates tive human perception and cooperation. Rotated Component 4
reasonable fit. contains Popular responses and Ordinary-Form responses (well-
fitting form perceptions, occurring fairly often) versus Minus-
Step 4b: Component loadings. Two elements of the CAT- Form responses (nonfitting form perceptions) together with poor
PCA output give insight into the component loadings: (a) the human representation, human detail, and R. Thus, after creat-
Component loadings table, and (b) the Loadings plot. ing percentage scores for all variables, the raw variable R still
Table 3 is a loading table with (orthogonal) VARIMAX ro- contributes to a factor where it is negatively related to popular
tated component loadings of each of the analysis variables.8 Ro- and common well-fitting perceptions, and positively related to
tated Component 1 contains mainly variables indicating some distorted perceptions of human content or activity and human
type of active and integrated movement versus simplicity des- details. In other words, persons who give many responses are
ignated by the variables F (form alone) and DQo (ordinary more likely to report a high proportion of perceptions of the
latter types. Rotated Component 5 is mainly an organizational
8As rotation options are not available within CATPCA in SPSS 17, VARI- dimension containing Zd, unusual (fitting, but rare) form re-
MAX rotation was performed by saving the transformed variables and submit- sponses, and responses using color primary to form, and white
ting them to a linear PCA with VARIMAX rotation. space. Hdprn (mythical human) also loads positively on this
 NONLINEAR PCA WITH CATPCA
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 10:04 18 July 2013
FIGURE 8.—Rotated component loadings plot for the first two components
from the CATPCA solution on 42 selected Rorschach variables analyzed at a
spline ordinal level. Component 1 signifies static objects versus movement, and
Component 2 holistic interpretation versus detail.
dimension. Thus, persons with higher proportions of unusual
form responses using color and white space are more likely to
report perceptions of a mythological or fictive human figure,
whereas a pure animal perception (loading negatively on this
dimension) is less likely. Finally, rotated Component 6 consists
of vague, abstract responses (no-form requiring, vague percep-
tions, using pure color and pure diffuse shading, and abstract
content). According to these interpretations, the NLPCA solu-
tion seems to give sensible insight into the Rorschach data.
Besides component tables, two-dimensional component load-
ing plots give an insightful overview of relations between vari-
ables (for solutions with more than two dimensions, pairwise
plots can be requested). Such plots show loading vectors, which
are partial variable vectors, running from the origin to the load-
ing point (see the black lines in Figures 1 and 3). When an
ordinal or nominal analysis level is used, the category plot (such
as Figure 3) gives insight into the location of the categories on
the variable vector. The length of the loading vector indicates
variable VAF, and when vectors are long, cosines of the angles
between vectors indicate correlations between variables.
In Figure 8, loadings on rotated Components 1 and 2 are
shown. This plot immediately shows the relations between vari-
ables that are important in the first two components of the so-
lution. In interpreting relations it is important to realize that
scores are relative to R, so proportions of total responses. For
instance, W (whole card) and D (detail) point in opposite di-
rections, indicating a strong negative association between the
two: Respondents who use the whole card in a large proportion
of responses tend to use card details in a small proportion of
responses. The same type of reasoning applies, for instance,
to the vectors for DQ+ (objects in a meaningful relationship,
abbreviated DQp in Figure 8), DQo (ordinary object), F (form
only), and Blends. Variables indicating movement (M, FM, Ac-
tive, Passive, AG) make a close to 90◦ angle with the variables
indicating whole card versus detail, indicating that these groups
of variables are practically unrelated. In contrast, variables that
23
FIGURE 9.—Biplot of (a) rotated component loadings from the CATPCA solu-
tion on 42 selected Rorschach variables analyzed at a spline ordinal level, and
(b) category points for the supplementary multiple nominal variable Uncommon
content.
make a small angle with each other, such as the movement vari-
ables and DQo, DQ+, F, and Blends, or D and Dd (common
and unusual detail) are strongly related.
Step 4c: Object scores. The Object scores plot can be used
to determine outliers (as described in Step 2 of the analysis
process). Also, the object points can be depicted together with
the loading vectors in a biplot. Object points can then imagi-
narily be projected onto variable vectors to show relationships
with the variables. For instance, when we would depict object
points in Figure 8, a person located in the top left of the space
will have relatively high proportions of responses using the
whole card, form alone, and—to a lesser extent—white space,
and relatively low proportions of responses involving details
and pairs. For outliers, such projection onto the loading vectors
might show on which variables the outlying scores occur. To
gain insight into associations between variables and persons,
CATPCA offers the option to label the object points according
to any variable in the data set (e.g., background variables, like
gender). For the Rorschach data, the object scores plots show
evenly spread clouds of object points without outliers, and are
not shown here for conciseness.
NLPCA Step 5: Gain More Insight
After looking at the NLPCA solution on the Rorschach vari-
ables, complementary steps can be taken to gain more insight
into the component structure. For instance, relations with cate-
gorical variables not included in the analysis could be investi-
gated by adding such variables as supplementary. Supplemen-
tary variables do not affect the solution in any way, but their
categories are fitted into the solution based on the analysis vari-
ables. Here, we add the variable Uncommon content (see the
data description) as a supplementary variable with a multiple
nominal analysis level.
Multiple nominal quantifications are estimated using the cen-
troid model, showing the position of the categories as group
 24
points instead of in the direction of the variable in the principal
component space (see also Figure 2).9 Accordingly, variables
with a multiple nominal analysis level do not obtain loadings;
their total VAF is called the discrimination measure in MCA.10
Figure 9 is a biplot, showing the categories of Uncommon
content displayed within the rotated component loadings plot
on the first two components (see Figure 8). To enhance legibil-
ity, specific variable labels have been omitted and replaced by
more general indications of the content of the variables. Look-
ing at Figure 9, we see that the categories are well spread across
space, which indicates that persons scoring different Uncom-
mon content categories can be clearly distinguished from each
other according to their scoring pattern on the analysis vari-
ables. The categories Blood and Explosion are excluded from
the plot, because these were very rare responses (only one per-
son had either of these as most frequent category). The plot
can be interpreted by (imaginary) projection of the categories
onto the variable vectors to see how they relate to the vec-
tor variables. For example, people who have Clouds (Cl) and
Human Experience (Hx) as their most frequent Uncommon con-
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 10:04 18 July 2013
tent category typically also have high proportions of movement
and interaction responses and relatively rarely have form alone
and ordinary objects responses. Sex (Sx) and X-ray (Xy) are
most often reported when the proportion of detail and pair re-
sponses is high, and is the least reported when the proportion
of responses using the whole card is high. In contrast, persons
who have fire (Fi) as their most frequent Uncommon content
category tend to base their perception on the card as a whole
instead of on details. Food and Maps (Geog) go together with
high proportions of ordinary objects and form alone responses
and a low proportion of movement responses. Another interest-
ing conclusion is that Landscape (Ls), Nature (Na), Art, and
Botany (Bt) are all close together in the plot, indicating that re-
spondents who used these categories most frequently are quite
alike in their scoring patterns. These results all seem to make
sense in the context of personality assessment. Note that these
interpretations only concern the variables loading highly on the
first or second component. Interpretations of the locations of the
Uncommon content categories in relation to the other variables
should be inspected in plots of the components on which these
variables load highly.
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
This article serves two important purposes. First, it offers a
nontechnical, step-by-step guide through CATPCA, illustrated
by an empirical example, which should be helpful to all re-
searchers wishing to use NLPCA in their own analyses. Second,
it shows that the usefulness of NLPCA as a method goes beyond
improving the VAF of the PCA solution.
In fact, when the six-dimensional NLPCA solution with all
variables analyzed at a spline ordinal level (VAF = 50.69%) is
compared to the linear PCA solution (VAF = 49.22%), the im-
provement in VAF by allowing nonlinear transformations is very
small: a mere 1.5%. This increase will become larger as more
freedom is granted to the method, for instance, by analyzing
9The multiple nominal level is referred to as multiple because such a variable
obtains category quantifications for each principal component, in contrast to the
single, overall quantifications obtained with the other analysis levels.
10Although not referred to as such in NLPCA, this measure is found in the
VAF table in the Mean column under Centroid coordinates.
LINTING AND VAN DER KOOIJ
all variables nominally, or by increasing the degree or number
of knots in the spline transformation. However, because of the
many categories of most variables, granting too much freedom
could lead to capitalization on chance, and would not be ad-
visable. Even if less restricted analysis levels were used in this
particular data set, the increase in VAF would not exceed a few
percent. This result is due to the fact that the transformation of
most variables did not show much nonlinearity, indicating that
the relations between variables in this data set are not far from
linear, which is useful knowledge in itself. Variables that did
show nonlinear relations with the other variables had relatively
low VAF in the solution. Consequently, the loadings pattern in
NLPCA did not differ much from that in linear PCA either.
The “Application” section of this article shows that, contrary
to linear PCA, NLPCA gives insight in the nature of the rela-
tions in the data, and allows the researcher to make informed
decisions about data analysis, instead of relying on possibly un-
realistic assumptions. In fact, NLPCA can be used as a means
to check assumptions about linearity of relations between vari-
ables. In addition, this article shows how including variables as
multiple nominal, thus combining the PCA (vector) model with
the correspondence model (a feature unique to NLPCA), can
render interesting results. In linear PCA, inclusion of (multiple)
nominal variables is impossible. An additional advantage of the
CATPCA program in particular is that it renders more insightful
(bi)plots than standard linear PCA software.
A more substantive comparison to other PCA results regard-
ing the Rorschach would be interesting. Such a comparison is
complicated, however, because different variables were selected
for analysis across studies. In addition, a complete review goes
beyond the scope of this article. However, we made a tentative
comparison to Meyer’s (1992b) results, and found interesting
similarities. The first dimension found by Meyer can in con-
tent be comparable to our Dimension 4, although it shows other
types of relationships between variables, because we divided
the data by response frequency (R), thus removing trivial re-
lationships between R and other Rorschach variables. Meyer’s
second dimension includes all frequent location features (e.g.,
D, Dd, and Zd) and R, which corresponds to our second dimen-
sion. His third dimension containing nonform-dominant holistic
perceptions resembles our Dimension 5. Meyer’s fourth dimen-
sion (form-dominant shading) is not present in our analysis,
because most variables from this dimension were not selected
for analysis. Compared to Meyer, we did not find a dimension
dominated by R, due to division by R. On the other hand, we did
find extra dimensions on movement, human-related content, and
abstract content. We leave it to applied psychologists to decide
whether our results provide insight into personality. However,
using NLPCA on these data does provide insight into the nature
of the relations among the Rorschach variables, compared to
using standard linear PCA.
REFERENCES
Comrey, A. (1973). A first course on factor analysis. London, UK: Academic
Press.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New
York, NY: Chapman & Hall.
Exner, J. (1986). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system: Vol. 1. Basic foun-
dations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Exner, J. (1991). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system: Vol. 2. Interpretation
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Gifi, A. (1990). Nonlinear multivariate analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
 NONLINEAR PCA WITH CATPCA 25

Guttman, L. (1941). The quantification of a class of attributes: A theory and a SAS Institute. (2009a). SAS/ STAT
R 9.2 user’s guide. Cary, NC: Author.

method of scale construction. In P. Horst (Ed.), The prediction of personal SAS Institute. (2009b). SAS/STAT
R software [Computer software]. Cary, NC:

adjustment (pp. 319–348). New York, NY: Social Science Research Council. Author.
Jolliffe, I. T. (2002). Principal component analysis. New York, NY: Springer- Shepard, R. N. (1966). Metric structures in ordinal data. Journal of Mathematical
Verlag. Psychology, 3, 287–315.
Kruskal, J. B. (1965). Analysis of factorial experiments by estimating monotone SPSS. (2009). PASW Statistics
R 17.0 [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Au-

transformations of the data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series
B, 27, 251–263.
Kruskal, J. B., & Shepard, R. N. (1974). A nonmetric variety of linear factor
analysis. Psychometrika, 39, 123–157.
Linting, M., Meulman, J. J., Groenen, P. J. F., & Van der Kooij, A. J. (2007a).
Nonlinear principal components analysis: Introduction and application. Psy-
chological Methods, 12, 336–358.
Linting, M., Meulman, J. J., Groenen, P. J. F., & Van der Kooij, A. J. (2007b).
Stability of nonlinear principal components analysis: An empirical study
using the balanced bootstrap. Psychological Methods, 12, 359–379.
Linting, M., Van Os, B. J., & Meulman, J. J. (2011). Statistical significance of
the contribution of variables to the PCA solution: An alternative permutation
strategy. Psychometrika, 76, 440–460.
Markus, M. T. (1994). Bootstrap confidence regions in nonlinear multivariate
analysis. Leiden, The Netherlands: Leiden University DSWO Press.
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 10:04 18 July 2013
thor.
Timmerman, M. E., Kiers, H. A. L., & Smilde, A. K. (2007). Estimating con-
fidence intervals for principal component loadings: A comparison between
the bootstrap and asymptotic results. British Journal of Mathematical and
Statistical Psychology, 60, 295–314.
Winsberg, S., & Ramsay, J. O. (1983). Monotone spline transformations for
dimension reduction. Psychometrika, 48, 575–595.
Young, F., Takane, Y., & De Leeuw, J. (1978). The principal components of
mixed measurement level multivariate data: An alternating least squares
method with optimal scaling. Psychometrika, 43, 279–281.
APPENDIX
ANNOTATED CATPCA SYNTAX FOR FINAL ANALYSIS
ON RORSCHACH DATA

Meulman, J. J., Heiser, W. J., & SPSS. (2009). SPSS Categories 17.0. Chicago,
IL: SPSS.
Meulman, J. J., Van der Kooij, A. J., & Heiser, W. J. (2004). Principal compo-
nents analysis with nonlinear optimal scaling transformations for ordinal and
nominal data. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative methodology for
the social sciences (pp. 49–70). London, UK: Sage.
Meyer, G. (1992a). Response frequency problems in the Rorschach. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 58, 231–244.
Meyer, G. (1992b). The Rorschach’s factor structure: A contemporary investi-
gation and historical review. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59, 117–136.
Meyer, G. (2000). A replication of Rorschach and MMPI–2 convergent validity.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 175–215.
R Development Core Team. (2005). R: A language and environment for statis-
tical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
CATPCA can be entirely operated using the SPSS menu.
CATPCA is entered by clicking Analyze → Dimension reduc-
tion (in versions preceding 17.0: Data reduction) → Optimal
Scaling, and checking “Some variables are not multiple nomi-
nal.” The window that pops up gives the user the opportunity to
specify all analysis options described in this article. After speci-
fying the options, syntax can be generated by clicking the Paste
button. Some insight into this syntax enables the user to easily
adjust analysis options, without repeatedly going through the
entire menu. Therefore, the annotated syntax of the final analy-
sis described in this article is displayed in Table A1. To enhance
legibility, instead of 42 variables, only 5 variables are listed.

TABLE A1.—Annotated syntax.

Syntax Annotation

CATPCA /VAR r w d space cont Call CATPCA and list all variables to be analyzed (including supplementary variables).
/ANALYSIS r w d space (SPORD, Specify the analysis level of each variable. Each variable can obtain its own specification, between parentheses, but
DEGREE = 2, INKNOT = 2) cont you can also list all variables with the same analysis level and state the level only once, followed by variables with
(MNOM) different levels (as done here). When for all variables the same analysis level is chosen, “all” can be used instead of
the complete variable list.
Note. These remarks on the use of variable lists apply to the other options as well.
/MISSING = r w d space cont (PASSIVE, Specify missing options. Here, passive treatment of missings is specified (default option), the second keyword
MODEIMPU) (MODEIMPU) applies only to the calculation of the correlation matrix once the quantified variables are found. If
the first keyword is ACTIVE, MODEIMPU imputes missing data with the mode of the variable (other imputation
options are available).
/SUPPLEMENTARY = VARIABLE (cont) List supplementary variables between parentheses.
/DISCR r w d space (RANK) Specify discretizing options for the variables. (Cont is an integer-valued variable and does not need to be
discretized.)
/DIM = 6 Specify number of dimensions.
/PRINT = Specify table output:
DESCR Descriptives (frequencies, mode, a.o.)
CORR Correlations between transformed variables
LOADING Component loadings
OBJECT Object scores
VAF VAF per variable per dimension
/PLOT = Specify figure output:
BIPLOT(LOADING) (20) Biplot of loadings and component scores
OBJECT (20) Component scores
CATEGORY(R W D SPACE) (20) Category points
LOADING((CENTR)) (20) Biplot of component loadings and category points of multiple nominal variables
TRANS(ALL) (20) Transformation plots. (20) indicates that 20 (the default) characters of the value labels of categories are used in
point labels. When specifying 0, values instead of value labels are used as point labels.
NDIM(1,6) Specifies dimension numbers for pairwise plots Here, we obtain plots of dimension 1 by 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
/SAVE = OBJECT TRDATA Specify results to be saved within the current data set. Here, object scores and quantified variables are rendered.
/OUTFILE = DISCRDATA Write results to external data file. Here, the discretized data are sent to Discr.sav in the directory dirname.
(“c:/DIRNAME/DISCR.SAV”).