Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:56:23.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimation and Tests of Significance in Factor Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

C. Radhakrishna Rao
C. Radhakrishna Rao*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A distinction is drawn between the method of principal components developed by Hotelling and the common factor analysis discussed in psychological literature both from the point of view of stochastic models involved and problems of statistical inference. The appropriate statistical techniques are briefly reviewed in the first case and detailed in the second. A new method of analysis called the canonical factor analysis, explaining the correlations between rather than the variances of the measurements, is developed. This analysis furnishes one out of a number of possible solutions to the maximum likelihood equations of Lawley. It admits an iterative procedure for estimating the factor loadings and also for constructing the likelihood criterion useful in testing a specified hypothesis on the number of factors and in determining a lower confidence limit to the number of factors.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 1955 , pp. 93 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © 1955 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.)

References

Bartlett, M. S. Tests of significance in factor analysis. Brit. J. Psychol., Statist. Sect., 1950, 3, 77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, M. S. A further note on tests of significance in factor analysis. Brit. J. Psychol., Statist. Sect., 1951, 4, 1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, C. Tests of significance in factor analysis. Brit. J. Psychol., Statist. Sect., 1952, 5, 109–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. B. Parallel proportional profiles. Psychometrika, 1944, 9, 267–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. B. The description and measurement of personality, Yonkers, New York: World Book Co., 1946Google Scholar
Davis, F. B. Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading. Psychometrika, 1944, 9, 185–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzinger, K. J., and Harman, H. H.. Factor analysis, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1941Google Scholar
Hotelling, H. Analysis of a complex of variables into principal components. J. educ. Psychol., 1933, 24, 417–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotelling, H. Relations between two sets of variates. Biometrika, 1936, 28, 321–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, M. G. Factor analysis. J. roy. stat. Soc., 1950, 12, 60–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawley, D. N. The estimation of factor loadings by the method of maximum likelihood. Proc. roy. Soc. Edin., 1940, 60, 64–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawley, D. N. Further investigations in factor estimation. Proc. roy. Soc. Edin., 1941, 61, 176–185Google Scholar
Neuhaus, J. O., and Wrigley, C. F. The quadrimax method: an analytic approach to orthogonal simple structure. Manuscript on file in the Univ. Illinois Library, 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, C. R. Advanced statistical methods in biometric research, New York: Wiley, 1952Google Scholar
Rao, C. R. Discriminant functions for genetic differentiation and selection. Sankhyā, 1953, 12, 229–229Google Scholar
Thomson, G. H. The factorial analysis of human ability 5th ed., London: Univ. London Press, 1951Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. A new rotational method in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1938, 3, 199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar