Factor analysis which rotation

In this example, an oblique rotation accommodates the data better than an orthogonal rotation. About the Author: Maike Rahn is a health scientist with a strong background in data analysis.

Maike has a Ph. This is very helpful for simple understanding. There are other rotation as well, e. If these rotation can be explained simply as above then that will be very helpful. I have a question. What happens if after a rotation the item correlates to two factors almost equally? If one component extracted, can we use loading of component matrix as rotated component matrix is not possible?

I have Factors and their loading, but how to perform varimax rotation, The most of the tools perfomr the PCA there after rotation. But I only need to perform the varimax rotation. I really appreciated and understood rotation method to explain correlation with various factors. Thanks Sir. As much as analysis addresses the most mathematically correct solution it also needs to address the understanding of audiences who make use of the findings.

In this way, in conveying results to most organizations not made up of scientists or statisticians oblique or non-orthogonal rotations are of limited usefulness. Those who need to use the findings simply do not understand these. The main value of rotation I have found is to distribute the loadings of items more clearly into the factors. Rotation clarifies the relationships among the variables. Importantly, all orthogonal rotation methods commonly used return results that are effectively the same.

My advice to clients therefore always has been, rotate the solution, and unless your audience is very sophisticated, stick with the orthogonal rotations. Any one will work well. Oblique is the default for us, most of the time.

My dilemma, is the usefulness of output for PAF FA with oblique rotation, for non-normally distributed data; such as from surveys. Standardised items tend to be skewed; box and whiskers can look like scrambled eggs.

Thanks for the information. I have both positive and negative loadings. After generating the factor scores, SPSS will add two extra variables to the end of your variable list, which you can view via Data View. These are now ready to be entered in another analysis as predictors. For those who want to understand how the scores are generated, we can refer to the Factor Score Coefficient Matrix. These are essentially the regression weights that SPSS uses to generate the scores.

Using the Factor Score Coefficient matrix, we multiply the participant scores by the coefficient matrix for each column. For the first factor:. This table can be interpreted as the covariance matrix of the factor scores, however it would only be equal to the raw covariance if the factors are orthogonal.

For example, if we obtained the raw covariance matrix of the factor scores we would get. You will notice that these values are much lower. Among the three methods, each has its pluses and minuses. The regression method maximizes the correlation and hence validity between the factor scores and the underlying factor but the scores can be somewhat biased.

This means even if you have an orthogonal solution, you can still have correlated factor scores. Unbiased scores means that with repeated sampling of the factor scores, the average of the scores is equal to the average of the true factor score. The Anderson-Rubin method perfectly scales the factor scores so that the factor scores are uncorrelated with other factors and uncorrelated with other factor scores.

Since Anderson-Rubin scores impose a correlation of zero between factor scores, it is not the best option to choose for oblique rotations. Additionally, Anderson-Rubin scores are biased. In summary, if you do an orthogonal rotation, you can pick any of the the three methods.

For orthogonal rotations, use Bartlett if you want unbiased scores, use the regression method if you want to maximize validity and use Anderson-Rubin if you want the factor scores themselves to be uncorrelated with other factor scores. Do not use Anderson-Rubin for oblique rotations. Click here to report an error on this page or leave a comment. Your Name required. Your Email must be a valid email for us to receive the report! How to cite this page. Purpose This seminar is the first part of a two-part seminar that introduces central concepts in factor analysis.

Correlation is significant at the 0. These interrelationships can be broken up into multiple components Partitioning the variance in factor analysis Since the goal of factor analysis is to model the interrelationships among items, we focus primarily on the variance and covariance rather than the mean. Factor analysis assumes that variance can be partitioned into two types of variance, common and unique Common variance is the amount of variance that is shared among a set of items.

Items that are highly correlated will share a lot of variance. Values closer to 1 suggest that extracted factors explain more of the variance of an individual item. There are two types: Specific variance : is variance that is specific to a particular item e. Error variance: comes from errors of measurement and basically anything unexplained by common or specific variance e.

The figure below shows how these concepts are related: The total variance is made up to common variance and unique variance, and unique variance is composed of specific and error variance. Performing Factor Analysis As a data analyst, the goal of a factor analysis is to reduce the number of variables to explain and to interpret the results.

This can be accomplished in two steps: factor extraction factor rotation Factor extraction involves making a choice about the type of model as well the number of factors to extract. Extracting Factors There are two approaches to factor extraction which stems from different approaches to variance partitioning: a principal components analysis and b common factor analysis.

Principal Components Analysis Unlike factor analysis, principal components analysis or PCA makes the assumption that there is no unique variance, the total variance is equal to common variance. Running a PCA with 8 components in SPSS The goal of a PCA is to replicate the correlation matrix using a set of components that are fewer in number and linear combinations of the original set of items. Since variance cannot be negative, negative eigenvalues imply the model is ill-conditioned.

Eigenvalues close to zero imply there is item multicollinearity, since all the variance can be taken up by the first component. Component Matrix The components can be interpreted as the correlation of each item with the component.

Component Matrix a Item Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 0. Total Variance Explained in the 8-component PCA Recall that the eigenvalue represents the total amount of variance that can be explained by a given principal component. Choosing the number of components to extract Since the goal of running a PCA is to reduce our set of variables down, it would useful to have a criterion for selecting the optimal number of components that are of course smaller than the total number of items.

Component Matrix a Item Component 1 2 1 0. Quick check: True or False The elements of the Component Matrix are correlations of the item with each component. The sum of the squared eigenvalues is the proportion of variance under Total Variance Explained.

F sum of squared loadings , 3. T Communalities of the 2-component PCA The communality is the sum of the squared component loadings up to the number of components you extract. Communalities Initial Extraction 1 1. Quiz 1. Answer : When you run an 8-component PCA. True or False The eigenvalue represents the communality for each item. For a single component, the sum of squared component loadings across all items represents the eigenvalue for that component.

The sum of eigenvalues for all the components is the total variance. The sum of the communalities down the components is equal to the sum of eigenvalues down the items. Common Factor Analysis The partitioning of variance differentiates a principal components analysis from what we call common factor analysis.

Error of the Estimate 1. Quick Quiz In theory, when would the percent of variance in the Initial column ever equal the Extraction column?

Summing the eigenvalues or Sums of Squared Loadings in the Total Variance Explained table gives you the total common variance explained. Summing down all items of the Communalities table is the same as summing the eigenvalues or Sums of Squared Loadings down all factors under the Extraction column of the Total Variance Explained table. Quiz True or False the following assumes a two-factor Principal Axis Factor solution with 8 items The elements of the Factor Matrix represent correlations of each item with a factor.

Each squared element of Item 1 in the Factor Matrix represents the communality. Summing the squared elements of the Factor Matrix down all 8 items within Factor 1 equals the first Sums of Squared Loading under the Extraction column of Total Variance Explained table.

Summing down all 8 items in the Extraction column of the Communalities table gives us the total common variance explained by both factors. The total common variance explained is obtained by summing all Sums of Squared Loadings of the Initial column of the Total Variance Explained table The total Sums of Squared Loadings in the Extraction column under the Total Variance Explained table represents the total variance which consists of total common variance plus unique variance.

In common factor analysis, the sum of squared loadings is the eigenvalue. Goodness-of-fit Test Chi-Square df Sig. Number of Factors Chi-square Df p -value Iterations needed 1 Since they are both factor analysis methods, Principal Axis Factoring and the Maximum Likelihood method will result in the same Factor Matrix.

When looking at the Goodness-of-fit Test table, a p -value less than 0. In the Goodness-of-fit Test table, the lower the degrees of freedom the more factors you are fitting.

Comparing Common Factor Analysis versus Principal Components As we mentioned before, the main difference between common factor analysis and principal components is that factor analysis assumes total variance can be partitioned into common and unique variance, whereas principal components assumes common variance takes up all of total variance i. Quiz True or False The following applies to the SAQ-8 when theoretically extracting 8 components or factors for 8 items: For each item, when the total variance is 1, the common variance becomes the communality.

In principal components, each communality represents the total variance across all 8 items. In common factor analysis, the communality represents the common variance for each item. The communality is unique to each factor or component. For both PCA and common factor analysis, the sum of the communalities represent the total variance explained.

For PCA, the total variance explained equals the total variance, but for common factor analysis it does not. Rotation Methods After deciding on the number of factors to extract and with analysis model to use, the next step is to interpret the factor loadings.

Simple structure Without rotation, the first factor is the most general factor onto which most items load and explains the largest amount of variance. The definition of simple structure is that in a factor loading matrix: Each row should contain at least one zero. For m factors, each column should have at least m zeroes e.

For every pair of factors columns , there should be several items for which entries approach zero in one column but large loadings on the other. The following table is an example of simple structure with three factors: Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 1 0. Quiz For the following factor matrix, explain why it does not conform to simple structure using both the conventional and Pedhazur test.

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 1 0. Orthogonal Rotation 2 factor PAF We know that the goal of factor rotation is to rotate the factor matrix so that it can approach simple structure in order to improve interpretability.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 3 iterations. Rotated Factor Matrix a Factor 1 2 1 0. Rotation Method: Varimax without Kaiser Normalization. Interpreting the factor loadings 2-factor PAF Varimax In the table above, the absolute loadings that are higher than 0. Factor Transformation Matrix Factor 1 2 1 0. The figure below summarizes the steps we used to perform the transformation The Factor Transformation Matrix can also tell us angle of rotation if we take the inverse cosine of the diagonal element.

Other Orthogonal Rotations Varimax rotation is the most popular but one among other orthogonal rotations. In oblique rotation, you will see three unique tables in the SPSS output: factor pattern matrix contains partial standardized regression coefficients of each item with a particular factor factor structure matrix contains simple zero order correlations of each item with a particular factor factor correlation matrix is a matrix of intercorrelations among factors Suppose the Principal Investigator hypothesizes that the two factors are correlated, and wishes to test this assumption.

Smaller delta values will increase the correlations among factors. You typically want your delta values to be as high as possible. Pattern Matrix a Factor 1 2 1 0. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 5 iterations. Structure Matrix Factor 1 2 1 0.

Factor Correlation Matrix 2-factor PAF Direct Quartimin Recall that the more correlated the factors, the more difference between pattern and structure matrix and the more difficult to interpret the factor loadings. Factor Correlation Matrix Factor 1 2 1 1. Factor plot The difference between an orthogonal versus oblique rotation is that the factors in an oblique rotation are correlated.

Relationship between the Pattern and Structure Matrix The structure matrix is in fact a derivative of the pattern matrix. Questions Without changing your data or model, how would you make the factor pattern matrices and factor structure matrices more aligned with each other?

True or False, When you decrease delta, the pattern and structure matrix will become closer to each other. When factors are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance. In the Total Variance Explained table, the Rotation Sum of Squared Loadings represent the unique contribution of each factor to total common variance.

The Pattern Matrix can be obtained by multiplying the Structure Matrix with the Factor Correlation Matrix If the factors are orthogonal, then the Pattern Matrix equals the Structure Matrix In oblique rotations, the sum of squared loadings for each item across all factors is equal to the communality in the SPSS Communalities table for that item.

Simple Structure As a special note, did we really achieve simple structure? Promax Rotation Promax rotation begins with Varimax orthgonal rotation, and uses Kappa to raise the power of the loadings. Generating Factor Scores Suppose the Principal Investigator is happy with the final factor analysis which was the two-factor Direct Quartimin solution. Factor Scores Method: Regression. If you compare these elements to the Covariance table below, you will notice they are the same. Regression, Bartlett and Anderson-Rubin compared Among the three methods, each has its pluses and minuses.

Quiz True or False If you want the highest correlation of the factor score with the corresponding factor i. Bartlett scores are unbiased whereas Regression and Anderson-Rubin scores are biased. Anderson-Rubin is appropriate for orthogonal but not for oblique rotation because factor scores will be uncorrelated with other factor scores. Component Matrix a. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained. Model Summary. R Square. Goodness-of-fit Test.

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings a. Pattern Matrix. Related reference Matrix rotations. Search Sign in. Company Blog About us Contact us Privacy policy. Analyse-it Software, Ltd.

Last update PM AnalyseIt. Public 4.