SUKKUR IBA UNIVERSITY

Case 4
Factor Analysis

IRSHAD HUSSAIN
IMRAN ARSHAD
GHULAM ABBAS
Introduction

 Bem Sex Role Inventory

 Created in 1974 by Sandra Lipsitz Bem
 Self administered questionnaire for knowing the
personality stereotypes
 Adjectives divided in 3 categories : masculine,
feminine & social desirability
 Likert scale : from 1 (never true of me) to 7 (always
true of me)

 We explored the principal dimensions of 44

adjectives in a sample of 369 cases.
Data Screening

 No missing values
 Aberrant values and Outliers
 Detected 18 values outside likert scale
 Detected 19 multivariate outliers by using
Mahalanobis Distance Method.

- We eliminated these 37 (18+19) cases

- The remaining sample size: 369-37 332

Assumptions of Factor Analysis

 Metric variables
 Adequate sample size
 Correlation
-Correlation Matrix
-Bartlett’s test of sphericity
-Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO)
Assumptions of Factor Analysis (Cont.)
 Interval Scale used
 Sample size is 332 > 220 (44*5)
 Correlation

-KMO & Bartlett’s test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling 0.854

Adequacy

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity 0.000

Factor Analysis

 Principal Component Analysis

- Covariance Matrix

 Number of Dimensions to Extract

- Scree Plot

- Percentage of variance explained

- Kaiser Criterion
- Minimum Average Partial Test
- Benzecri Criterion
 Scree Plot
- Elbow Test 2 components
- Scree Criterion 6 components
Scree Plot

20

15
Eigenvalue

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Component Number
 Percentage of variance explained &
Kaiser criterion
 50% of total variance explained 8 Components

 Kaiser criterion 1/44*100=2.3% 8 Components

Total variance explained

Components % of Variance Cumulative %

8 2.452 50.223
Minimum Average Partial Test & Benzecri
Criterion
 Minimum Average Partial Test 6 Components

 Benzecri Criterion 2 Components

Analysis with Two & Three Components

Components % of variance Loaded Cross-loaded Un-explained
explained variables variables variables

2 28.9% 39 3 5

3 34.4% 43 7 1
 No. of Dimensions Extracted
(conclusion)
Two Dimensions
 Moderately satisfactory percentage of variance explained

 Limited number of cross loaded variable

 Few un-explained variables

 Fulfils the objective of study

Labelling of Extracted Dimensions

Component-1 Masculinity
Component-2 Femininity
 Cross-loaded & Unexplained Variables
• Cross-loaded variables
• Helpful, dominant, conscious
• Un-explained Variables
• Flatter, moody, truthful, gullible, and childlike
• Eliminated variables
• 7 variables (1 by 1 elimination)
• Result of elimination
• 37 variables retained with no cross-loaded and
un-explained variable
• % of variance explained raised from 28.9 to 31.6
 Projection of Individuals
Projection of all cases on the two dimensions
 Horizontal axis Masculinity
 Vertical axis Femininity
 213  202 
   141  15
2 .00 0 00  83 280 307
538   154  709
295
 503143
      
 109  474476 479 122 225190
135

706   494    318    82 204 300
402
 317   40341
316278 687 336241245 1 323
   306
268
   758 467486
  550 3617074 346   438 460
569
102   27 756

1 .00 0 00 457  523126  
  521
472  717452  136
418
506 85 518
293  115491
  274 558 499   270

  434385  591 557     56251571 159
498 206 
690248 152 314414
374  514  556  439  
252
258 271264
5
   567 
  123
500   
 724117 420
142
231
570

754
99

505128
 
 14
440   326 
683  583
71  536 232 398 539
37
552 148
588 497
13 156 515  453 540 149
   448
   35 
454
157
7
358  481   711     88 266
   68 259464 205
513 487  
485
184 495
34
femininity

  579
166 520 413  313  9 
145  576 212
272  463
31 547
230 504
0 .00 0 00   407  125  35726
242
183 551
441
11 38  559113 493290

151 250255522
 87 380
757 55 236 
527 
446 110
 
581 
519 324 406
425
310 512
 462134
  273 330 80
 530 421    686 84
363  405
 
707 160397 
  311 
91 98 192
78 49214  502 401

302
689 365
   359  400 344
249 158
254 81   208  127 355 
247  3 23932 424269 319
 483 121 443 235
 2
461 
114    370 455
 
572  276
  592
308
577
48 
8     560
34829
328 277
120555  203
267 66
299
465  53
-1 .0 0 00 0 549  447  496 573 578  77 469

 28 33
710 229  553 691   
111 54
 107 
234 51723 337 
112
554 124  294
    89   90445 129
480210  589 442
320 349

  403 
688
   329 392 146  238
451
153 528
378
52 
  
150
335
144
-2 .0 0 00 0 116 489  325417
  
101 379 490
 685 
301

86
-3 .0 0 00 0
 534

-2 .0 0 00 0 -1 .0 0 00 0 0 .00 0 00 1 .00 0 00 2 .00 0 00

Masculinity
 Projection of Variables

Component Plot in Rotated Space

1.0

gentle tender

softspok undstand warm

compass soothe sensitiv affect
0.5 sympathy loyal
feminine cheerful
yielding happy selfsuff
foullang lovechil conscien
Component 2

reliant ambitiou
defbel stand
shy analyt risk
decide leaderab
individ
0.0 athlet assert
compete indpt
leadact
strpers
forceful
masculin

-0.5

-1.0

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

Component 1
 Independence of Dimensions

 Both Masculinity and Femininity are

orthogonal (independent) to each other.

Correlation Matrix
Femininity Masculinity
Femininity Pearson Correlation 1 .000

Masculinity Pearson Correlation .000 1

 Reliability of Scale
 Assess the degree of consistency among different
measurements of a variable

 Cronbach’s alpha is widely used reliability coefficient

• Splits the questionnaire into halves, correlates them
and averages correlation
• Value of alpha depends on the number of items i.e
greater the number of items, greater the alpha

Cronbach’s alpha Number of items

.850 37
 Reliability Coefficient

 Masculinity
Cronbach’s alpha Number of items

.847 18

 Femininity
Cronbach’s alpha Number of items

.797 19
 Validity of Scale
 Asseses the generalizability of the results to entire
population

 Divided US data into two sub samples

 Sub-samples are filtered and then analyzed separately

 Compared results (within sub samples & with US data)

 Variances of sub samples were almost same to that of

initial US data.
 Comparison of American and French
Population

 Very limited number of respondents in French

population…only 21

 With this low number, sample is not factorisable

 We retained 2 dimensions as finalized earlier

 Component Plot in Rotated Space

1.0
sensitiv

softspok sympathy
feminine soothe lovechil
warm affect
compass
undstand
0.5 yielding gentle
reliant athlet compete
tender
shy ambitiou stand forceful
Component 2

cheerful
decide risk happy
analyt loyal leadact
conscien individ foullang
0.0
selfsuff defbel assert
strpers
leaderab
indpt masculin

-0.5

-1.0

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

Component 1
 Treatment of Passive Variables
 To establish a relationship between French and
foreign population we use passive variables
 Two nominal passive variables are defined sex and
nationality
 Age is third metric passive variable
 Nominal variables are categorized into French and
foreign
 Nominal variables are projected as individual points
on the plot
 Calculation of Passive Variables
For calculating passive variables, first we calculated factor scores
against each adjective and using aggregate command we calculated
mean for nominal passive variables.

We added factor score into the original data file and drawn a plot in
cartesian coordinates

13
  4 10

1 .00 0 00 16


1
fem for
 18
17 7


14
fem fr  
5 12
fem ininity


0 .00 0 00 15 
3

20
 6


me n me
forn fr
2
-1 .0 0 00 0 
9 

11
8

19

-2 .0 0 00 0 
21
-1 .0 0 00 0 0 .00 0 00 1 .00 0 00

masculinity
 Conclusion

 On masculinity scale….French men have scored higher

than foreign men

 On femininity scale…French women have scored higher

than foreign women with significant difference

 Differences are due to culture, age, sex and nationality

 Small sample size also accounts for the differences

Thanks