Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:32:58.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpretation of Canonical Analysis: Rotated vs. Unrotated Solutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Norman Cliff  and
David J. Krus
Norman Cliff*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
David J. Krus
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
*
Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr. Norman Cliff, Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, University Park, Los Angeles, California 90007.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Orthogonal rotation of canonical variates is shown to preserve the major properties of the canonical solution and may increase its interpretability.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 1976 , pp. 35 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 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

Burt, C. Factor analysis and canonical correlation. British Journal of Psychology, 1948, 1, 96–106.Google Scholar
Hall, C. E. J. Rotation of canonical variates in multivariate analysis of variance. Experimental Education, 1969, 38, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotelling, H. The most predictable criterion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1935, 26, 139–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotelling, H. Relations between two sets of variates. Biometrika, 1936, 28, 321–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horst, P. Relations among m sets of variables. Psychometrika, 1961, 26, 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research, 1973, New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Koons, P. B. Canonical analysis. In Borko, H. (Eds.), Computer applications in the behavioral sciences, 1962, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Krus, D. J. and Tellegen, A. Consciousness III: Fact or fiction?. Psychological Reports, 1975, 36, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, N., Brent, D. H., and Hull, C. H. Statistical package for social sciences, 1970, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Reich, C. A. The greening of America, 1970, New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Tellegen, A. Research form of an authoritarian scale. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, 1974.Google Scholar
Tellegen, A. and Atkinson, G. Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (“absorption”), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1974, 33, 268–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomkins, S. S. Polarity scale, 1964, New York: Springer.Google Scholar