Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T08:32:37.736Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Techniques for Rotating Two or More Loading Matrices to Optimal Agreement and Simple Structure: A Comparison and Some Technical Details

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Henk A. L. Kiers
Henk A. L. Kiers*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Henk A. L. Kiers, Department of Psychology (SPA), Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, THE NETHERLANDS.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Matrices of factor loadings are often rotated to simple structure. When more than one loading matrix is available for the same variables, the loading matrices can be compared after rotating them all (separately) to simple structure. An alternative procedure is to rotate them to optimal agreement, and then compare them. In the present paper techniques are described that combine these two procedures. Specifically, five techniques that combine the ideals of rotation to optimal agreement and rotation to simple structure are compared on the basis of contrived and empirical data. For the contrived data, it is assessed to what extent the rotations recover the underlying common structure. For both the contrived and the empirical data it is studied to what extent the techniques give well matching rotated matrices, to what extent these have a simple structure, and to what extent the most prominent parts of the different loading matrices agree. It was found that the simple procedure of combining a Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) with Varimax on the mean of the matched loading matrices performs very well on all criteria, and, for most purposes, offers an attractive compromise of rotation to agreement and simple structure. In addition to this comparison, some technical improvements are proposed for Bloxom's rotation to simple structure and maximum similarity.

Keywords

generalized Procrustes rotationVarimax rotationsimilarity rotationalternating least squares algorithms

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , December 1997, pp. 545 - 568
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This research has been made possible by a fellowship from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences to the author. The author is obliged to René van der Heijden for assistance in programming the procedures in the simulation study reported in this paper, and to Jos ten Berge, three anonymous reviewers and an associate editor for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

Bloxom, B. (1968). Factorial rotation to simple structure and maximum similarity. Psychometrika, 33, 237–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cliff, N. (1966). Orthogonal rotation to congruence. Psychometrika, 31, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cliff, N., Krus, D. J. (1976). Interpretation of canonical analysis: Rotated vs. unrotated solutions. Psychometrika, 41, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, C. B., Ferguson, G. A. (1970). A general rotation criterion and its use in orthogonal rotation. Psychometrika, 35, 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. T. (1971). Transformation of factor matrices to achieve congruence. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 24, 22–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, J. C. (1975). Generalized Procrustes Analysis. Psychometrika, 40, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakstian, A. R. (1973). Procedures for the factor analytic treatment of measures obtained on different occasions. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 26, 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakstian, A. R. (1976). Two-matrix orthogonal rotation procedures. Psychometrika, 41, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiser, W. J. (1995). Convergent computation by iterative majorization: theory and applications in multidimensional data analysis. In Krzanowski, W. J. (Eds.), Recent advances in descriptive multivariate analysis (pp. 157–189). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennrich, R. I. (1970). Orthogonal rotation algorithms. Psychometrika, 35, 229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensema, C. (1972). A review of a rotation to obtain maximum similarity and simple structure among factor patterns. Behavioral Science, 17, 235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The Varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiers, H. A. L. (1990). Majorization as a tool for optimizing a class of matrix functions. Psychometrika, 55, 417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiers, H. A. L., ten Berge, J. M. F. (1992). Minimization of a class of matrix trace functions by means of refined majorization. Psychometrika, 57, 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristof, W., & Wingersky, B. (1971). Generalization of the orthogonal Procrustes rotation for more than two matrices. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association (pp. 89–90).Google Scholar
Markus, Th. (1994). Bootstrap confidence regions in nonlinear multivariate analysis, Leiden: DSWO Press.Google Scholar
Nevels, K. (1986). A direct solution for pairwise rotations in Kaiser's Varimax method. Psychometrika, 51, 327–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peay, E. R. (1988). Multidimensional rotation and scaling of configurations to optimal agreement. Psychometrika, 53, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SPSS Inc. (1990). SPSS/PC+ Advanced Statistics, Chicago: Author.Google Scholar
ten Berge, J. M. F. (1977). Orthogonal Procrustes rotation for two or more matrices. Psychometrika, 42, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Berge, J. M. F. (1986). Rotation to perfect congruence and the cross-validation of component weights across populations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 41–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ten Berge, J. M. F. (1995). Suppressing permutations or rigid planar rotations: A remedy against nonoptimal varimax rotations. Psychometrika, 60, 437–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Berge, J. M. F., Knol, D. L. (1984). Orthogonal rotations to maximal agreement for two or more matrices of different column orders. Psychometrika, 49, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Berge, J. M. F., Knol, D. L., Kiers, H. A. L. (1988). A treatment of the orthomax rotation family in terms of diagonalization, and a re-examination of a singular value approach to Varimax rotation. Computational Statistics Quarterly, 3, 207–217.Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies, Washington, DC: Department of the Army.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Schuur, W. H. (1984). Structure in political beliefs. A new model for stochastic unfolding with application to European party activists, Amsterdam: CT Press.Google Scholar
Widaman, K. F. (1993). Common factor analysis versus principal components analysis: Differential bias in representing model parameters. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 263–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed