Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T09:27:10.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alpha Factor Analysis of Infallible Variables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Gene V Glass
Gene V Glass*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relationship between the factor pattern, F, derived from fallible (containing measurement error) observations on variables and the factor pattern, F*, derived from infallible observations on variables is investigated. A widely believed relationship between F and F*, viz.,F* = AF where A is a diagonal matrix containing the inverses of the square roots of the reliabilities of the variables, is shown to be false for several factor analytic techniques. Under suitable assumptions, it is shown that for Kaiser and Caffrey's “alpha factor analysis”F* and F are related by F* = AF. Empirical examples for which the corresponding elements of F* and AF are equal to two decimal places are presented. The implications of the equality of F* and AF for alpha factor analysis are discussed.

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 1966, pp. 545 - 561
Copyright
Copyright © 1966 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I wish to acknowledge the generous assistance of Drs. Chester W. Harris and Henry F. Kaiser in the execution of the research reported in this paper.

References

Cattell, R. B. A note on factor invariance and the identification of factors. Brit. J. Psychol. (Statist. Sec.), 1949, 2, 134–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. B. Personality and motivation structure and measurement, New York: World Book, 1957.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. and Hartmann, W. A note on negative reliabilities. Educ. psychol. Meast, 1954, 14, 342–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., Rajaratnam, N., and Gleser, G. Theory of generalizability: a liberalization of reliability theory. Brit. J. statist. Psychol., 1963, 16, 137–163.10.1111/j.2044-8317.1963.tb00206.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cureton, E. E., et al. Verbal abilities experiment: analysis of new word meaning and verbal analogies tests. PRS Report No. 548, Personal Research Section, The Adjutant General's Office, War Department, 1944 (mimeographed).Google Scholar
Davis, F. B. Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading. Psychometrika, 1944, 9, 185–197.10.1007/BF02288722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, G. V. The resolution of complexes of infallible variables into common factors and principal components. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1965.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P., Merrifield, P. R., Cristensen, P. R., and Frick, J. W. An investigation of symbolic factors of cognition and convergent production. Psychology Laboratory Report No. 23, University of Southern California, April, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulliksen, H. Theory of mental tests, New York: Wiley, 1950.10.1037/13240-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttman, L. Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1954, 19, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, C. W. Some Rao-Guttman relationships. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 247–263.10.1007/BF02289622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, C. W. and Liba, M. University of Wisconsin studies in factor analysis. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1965.Google Scholar
Holzinger, K. J. and Swineford, F. A study in factor analysis: the stability of a bifactor solution, Chicago: Dept. Educ., Univ. Chicago, 1939.Google Scholar
Hotelling, H. Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. J. Educ. Psychol., 1933, 24, 417–441.10.1037/h0071325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H. F. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H. F. and Caffrey, J. Alpha factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1965, 30, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meredith, W. Canonical correlations with fallible data. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 55–65.10.1007/BF02289567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, W. B. and Hunka, S. Research tools: statistical methods. Rev. Educ. Res., 1960, 30, 440–486.Google Scholar
Rao, C. R. Estimation and tests of significance in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1955, 20, 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roff, M. The relation between results obtainable with raw and corrected correlation coefficients in multiple factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1937, 2, 35–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, D. R. Factor analysis I: Some effects of chance error. Psychometrika, 1948, 13, 251–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spearman, C. The abilities of man, New York: Macmillan, 1927.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. Multiple-factor analysis, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1947.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. Wechsler intelligence scale for children, New York: Psychological Corp., 1948.Google Scholar