Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Sociological Methods & Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by HUBBARD, R.
Right arrow Articles by ALLEN, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Cautionary Note on the Use of Principal Components Analysis

Supportive Empirical Evidence

RAYMOND HUBBARD

Drake University

STUART J. ALLEN

Pennsylvania State University—Behrend College

In a recent edition of this journal, Borgatta et al. (1986), using hypothetical data, illustrated how the results produced by principal components analysis can be substantially different from those of common factor analysis. The present article, using seven well-known data sets, extends their work into the empirical domain, and also compares the results of the maximum likelihood factor analysis model with those of the principal components model. The results strongly support those of Borgatta et al. Indeed, the discrepancies in the empirical results reported here are often larger than their hypothetical example suggests. It was found that, when comparing the performance of the principal components model with the common factor and maximum likelihood models, differences can be expected to occur in (1) the magnitudes of the factor loadings, (2) the signs attached to the factor loadings, and, most important, (3) the interpretation of the factors themselves.

Sociological Methods & Research, Vol. 16, No. 2, 301-308 (1987)
DOI: 10.1177/0049124187016002005
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
B. M. Byrne, P. Baron, and J. Balev
The Beck Depression Inventory: A Cross-Validated Test of Second-Order Factorial Structure for Bulgarian Adolescents
Educational and Psychological Measurement, April 1, 1998; 58(2): 241 - 251.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Sociological Methods ResearchHome page
L. WILKINSON
A Cautionary Note on the Use of Factor Analysis:: A Response to Borgatta, Kercher, and Stull, and Hubbard and Allen
Sociological Methods Research, May 1, 1989; 17(4): 449 - 459.
[Abstract]