Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-nzk4m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T07:26:28.225Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Communality of a Variable: Formulation by Cluster Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Robert C. Tryon
Robert C. Tryon*
Affiliation:
University of California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The communality of a variable represents the degree of its generality across n − 1 behaviors. Domain-sampling principles provide a fundamental conception and definition of the communality. This definition may be alternatively stated in eight different ways. Three definitions lead to precise formulas that determine the true value of the communality: (i) from the k necessary and sufficient dimensions derived by iterated factoring, (ii) from the n − 1 remaining variable-domains, and (iii) from k′ multiple clusters of the n variables. Seven definitions provide approximation formulas: (i) one from the k dimensions as initially factored, (ii) one from the n − 1 remaining variables, and (iii) five from a single cluster. Rank of the matrix is not a desiratum in some definitions. Using an example designed by Guilford to illustrate multiple-factor analysis, applications of the formulas based on the three precise definitions recover the true communalities, and five approximation formulas each gives values closer than the ad hoc estimates usually employed in factor analysis.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 1957 , pp. 241 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © 1957 The Psychometric Society

Access options

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

Footnotes

*

The writer wishes to express his indebtedness to C. F. Wrigley and H. Kaiser for their many helpful constructive criticisms.

References

Cattell, R. B. Factor analysis, New York: Harper, 1952Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936Google Scholar
Guttman, L. Multiple rectilinear prediction and the resolution into components. Psychometrika, 1940, 5, 75–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotelling, H. Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. J. educ. Psychol., 1933, 24, 417–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H. Solution for the communalities: a preliminary report. Contract Report 5, 27 Sept. 1956, Univ. Calif., Contract No. AF 41(657)-76.Google Scholar
Spearman, C. The abilities of man, London: Macmillan, 1927Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. Multiple-factor analysis, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1947Google Scholar
Tryon, R. C. Cluster analysis, Ann Arbor: Edwards Bros., 1939Google Scholar
Tryon, R. C. Identification of social areas by cluster analysis. Univ. Calif. Publ. Psychol., 1955, 8(1), 1–100Google Scholar
Tryon, R. C. General dimensions of individual differences: Cluster analysis vs. multiple-factor analysis. Amer. Psychol., 1956, 11, 479–479Google Scholar
Tryon, R. C. Reliability and domain validity: Reformulation and historical critique. Psych. Bull., 1957, 54, 229–249CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tryon, R. C. Cumulative communality cluster (CCC) analysis. Contract Report 7, 8 Nov. 1956. Univ. Calif. Contract No. AF 41(657)-76.Google Scholar
Tryon, R. C. Domain sampling formulation of cluster and factor analysis. Contract Report 18, July 1957, Univ. Calif. Contract No. AF 41(657)-76.Google Scholar
Wrigley, C. F., Cherry, C. N., Lee, M. C., and McQuitty, L. L. Use of the square-root method to identify factors in the job performance of aircraft mechanics. Psychol. Monogr., 1956, 70, No. 23. (Whole No. 430.)Google Scholar
Wrigley, C. F. An empirical comparison of various methods for the estimation of communalities. Contract Report 1, 30 June 1956. Univ. Calif. Contract No. AF 41(657)-76.Google Scholar