## Factor analysis question

### Factor analysis question

This may be a stupid question, but I can't seem to find the answer anywhere.
When reporting the results of a factor analysis, specifically the percentage
of varience the factor solution accounts for, do you report the extraction
sums of squares % of varience or the rotated % of varience?  Intuitively, I
think it should be the rotated % of varience, but I would be most grateful
for some input here.

Also, with factor analysis when looking at the loadings on each factor, some
of the items load on more than one item.  What questions should I be asking
if this happens?

Thanks very much

### Factor analysis question

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 03:40:25 GMT, "Mousie"

> This may be a stupid question, but I can't seem to find the answer anywhere.
> When reporting the results of a factor analysis, specifically the percentage
> of varience the factor solution accounts for, do you report the extraction
> sums of squares % of varience or the rotated % of varience?  Intuitively, I
> think it should be the rotated % of varience, but I would be most grateful
> for some input here.

The percent initially extracted is the one that says something
about the quality of the factoring.  For a common-factor
interpretation, the total fraction should be about the same as
the reliability.  You look at the cumulative percent to see that
it is 'reasonable,' and you look at the 'scree'  at the  to see
where the contribution drops stops.

Quote:

> Also, with factor analysis when looking at the loadings on each factor, some
> of the items load on more than one item.  What questions should I be asking
> if this happens?

"Are these items more ambiguous than they need to be?"

You do not say what it is that you are factoring.  If they are
questions that you have composed, then you have a chance
to refine them.

If there are a lot of cross-loadings that I did not expect,
then  I figure that the sample N  is probably too small,
given the amount of structure ('correlations') that existed;
and this lack of delineation could be a consequence.
(Then I would drop a bunch of variables to see if the

--

http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."  Justice Holmes.

Hello

We have a data set which includes, for each of 96 cities, 4 estimates
of the number of drug injectors in that city.  Each of these estimates
contains error.

We ran a factor analysis to determine their commonality.

We now wish to use the results of this analysis to come up with a
better estimate of the number of drug injectors in each city.

It seems intuitively reasonable to multiply the standardized scoring
coefficients by the estimates, add these together, and then divide by
the sum of the standardized scoring coefficients.  I've even seen this
done.  But I haven't seen a good proof that this is correct (it may not
be correct!)

Any advice on how to proceed will be appreciated.