SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 51 Özel Sayı

Deciding The Number Of Dimensions In Explanatory Factor Analysis: A Brief Overview Of The Methods

AÇIMLAYICI FAKTÖR ANALİZİNDE BOYUT SAYISINA KARAR VERME: YÖNTEMLERE KISA BİR BAKIŞ

Abdullah Faruk Kılıç(Adıyaman Üniversitesi)0000-0003-3129-1763
Pages
305–318
Publication Date
2022-08-09
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result, the number of dimensions can be decided by using traditional methods such as optimal parallel analysis, comparative data, or minimum average partial, as well as making use of machine learning methods (random forest or extreme gradient augmentation), which have found new uses in the literature, to researchers who will perform EFA.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) finds its place in many scientific fields (e.g. education, health science or economics).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Moreover, there is information about which method gives more accurate results in the simulation studies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, the number of dimensions can be decided by using traditional methods such as optimal parallel analysis, comparative data, or minimum average partial, as well as making use of machine learning methods (random forest or extreme gradient augmentation), which have found new uses in the literature, to researchers who will perform EFA.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:paralel analiz · kısmi korelasyonların ortalaması · açımlayıcı grafik analizi

Abstract

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) finds its place in many scientific fields (e.g. education, health science or economics). With this analysis, information about the nature and structure of the measured feature can be obtained. It is possible to have information about the nature of the measured feature by fulfilling the requirements of this analysis. Correctly deciding on the number of dimensions in EFA can also be challenging for researchers. For this reason, this study presents information on the theoretical background of the factor retention methods used when deciding on the number of dimensions in EFA. In addition, it has been given information about which software is available for these methods. Moreover, there is information about which method gives more accurate results in the simulation studies. As a result, the number of dimensions can be decided by using traditional methods such as optimal parallel analysis, comparative data, or minimum average partial, as well as making use of machine learning methods (random forest or extreme gradient augmentation), which have found new uses in the literature, to researchers who will perform EFA.

Özet

Açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA), bilimsel çalışma alanlarının birçoğunda (eğitim, sağlık, iktisat gibi) kendine yer bulmaktadır. Bu analizle ölçülen özelliğin doğası ve yapısı hakkında bilgi sahibi olunabilmektedir. Ölçülen özelliğin doğası hakkında bilgi sahibi olmak ise bu analizin gerekliliklerini yerine getirerek mümkündür. Açımlayıcı faktör analizinde boyut sayısına doğru bir şekilde karar verilmesi de araştırmacılar için zorlayıcı olabilmektedir. Bu nedenle bu çalışmada, açımlayıcı faktör analizinde boyut sayısına karar verirken kullanılabilecek yöntemlerin hem teorik alt yapısına hem de bu yöntemlerin hangi yazılımlarda bulunduğuna yönelik bilgiler sunulmuştur. Dahası gerçekleştirilen çalışmalarda hangi yöntemin daha uygun sonuçlar verdiği ve hangi yöntemlerin güncel çalışmalarda kullanılabileceğine yer verilmiştir. Sonuç olarak geleneksel yöntemlerden optimal paralel analiz, karşılaştırmalı veriler ya da kısmi korelasyonların ortalaması yöntemleriyle boyut sayısına karar verilebileceği gibi literatürde kendine daha yeni kullanım alanı bulmuş makine öğrenmesi yöntemlerinden de (rastgele orman ya da aşırı gradyan arttırma) yararlanılması AFA gerçekleştirecek araştırmacılara önerilebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kılıç, A. F. (2022). Deciding The Number Of Dimensions In Explanatory Factor Analysis: A Brief Overview Of The Methods. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı: 51 Özel Sayı, 305–318. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1095936

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (71)

  1. Auerswald, M., & Moshagen, M. (2019). How to determine the number of factors to retain in exploratory factor analysis: A comparison of extraction methods under realistic conditions. Psychological Methods, 24(4), 468–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000200
  2. Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2019). Factor analysis: Exploratory and confirmatory. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewers guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (2nd. ed.). Routledge.
  3. Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., & Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(6), 1–13. https://pareonline.net/pdf/v18n6.pdf
  4. Braeken, J., & van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2017). An empirical Kaiser criterion. Psychological Methods, 22(3), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000074
  5. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
  6. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford.
  7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (28. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  8. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
  9. Chen, T., He, T., Benesty, M., Khotilovich, V., Tang, Y., Cho, H., Chen, K., Mitchell, R., Cano, I., Zhou, T., Li, M., Xie, J., Lin, M., Geng, Y., Li, Y., & Yuan, J. (2022). xgboost: Extreme Gradient Boosting (1.5.2.1). https://cran.r-project.org/package=xgboost
  10. Cosemans, T., Rosseel, Y., & Gelper, S. (2021). Exploratory graph analysis for factor retention: Simulation results for continuous and binary data. Educational and Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644211059089
  11. Crawford, A. V., Green, S. B., Levy, R., Lo, W.-J., Scott, L., Svetina, D., & Thompson, M. S. (2010). Evaluation of parallel analysis methods for determining the number of factors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(6), 885–901. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410379332
  12. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
  13. Dinno, A. (2009). Exploring the sensitivity of Horn’s parallel analysis to the distributional form of random data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(3), 362–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170902938969
  14. Erkuş, A. (2019). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme-I: Temel kavramlar ve işlemler (4nd ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  15. Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University.
  16. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
  17. Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2000). Additive logistic regression: a statistical view of boosting. The Annals of Statistics, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1016218223
  18. Garrido, L. E., Abad, F. J., & Ponsoda, V. (2011). Performance of Velicer’s minimum average partial factor retention method with categorical variables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(3), 551–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410389489
  19. Glorfeld, L. W. (1995). An improvement on Horn’s parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(3), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055003002
  20. Golino, H. F., & Christensen, A. P. (2020). EGAnet: Exploratory Graph Analysis -- A framework for estimating the number of dimensions in multivariate data using network psychometrics.
  21. Golino, H. F., & Epskamp, S. (2017). Exploratory graph analysis: A new approach for estimating the number of dimensions in psychological research. PLOS ONE, 12(6), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174035
  22. Golino, H. F., Moulder, R., Shi, D., Christensen, A. P., Garrido, L. E., Nieto, M. D., Nesselroade, J., Sadana, R., Thiyagarajan, J. A., & Boker, S. M. (2020). Entropy fit indices: New fit measures for assessing the structure and dimensionality of multiple latent variables. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2020.1779642
  23. Golino, H. F., Shi, D., Christensen, A. P., Garrido, L. E., Nieto, M. D., Sadana, R., Thiyagarajan, J. A., & Martinez-Molina, A. (2020). Investigating the performance of exploratory graph analysis and traditional techniques to identify the number of latent factors: A simulation and tutorial. Psychological Methods, 25(3), 292–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000255
  24. Goretzko, D., & Bühner, M. (2020). One model to rule them all? Using machine learning algorithms to determine the number of factors in exploratory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 25(6), 776–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000262
  25. Green, S. B., Levy, R., Thompson, M. S., Lu, M., & Lo, W.-J. (2012). A proposed solution to the problem with using completely random data to assess the number of factors with parallel analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(3), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164411422252
  26. Guilford, J. P. (1946). New standards for test evaluation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6(4), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316444600600401
  27. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
  28. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
  29. Howard, M. C. (2016). A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: What we are doing and how can we improve? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664
  30. Humphreys, L. G., & Ilgen, D. R. (1969). Note on a criterion for the number of common factors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29(3), 571–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446902900303
  31. Kahn, J. H. (2006). Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, training, practice: Principles, advances, and applications. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 684–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006286347
  32. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
  33. Kılıç, A. E., & Yılmaz, R. (2021). YouTube’un eğitsel amaçlı kabul durumunun incelenmesi. Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.38151/akef.2021.10
  34. Kılıç, A. F., & Uysal, I. (2018). The effect of number of random generated correlation matrix on parallel analysis results. 27. Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi.
  35. Kılıç, A. F., & Uysal, İ. (2019). Comparison of factor retention methods on binary data: A simulation study. Turkish Journal of Education, 8(3), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.518636
  36. Kılıç, A. F., & Uysal, İ. (2021). Faktör çıkarma yöntemlerinin paralel analiz sonuçlarına etkisi. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 11(2), 926–942. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.747075
  37. Konan, N., & Mermer, S. (2021). Quantum leadership scale: Validity and reliability study. E-International Journal of Pedandragogy, 1(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.27579808/e-ijpa.13
  38. Koyuncu, İ., & Kılıç, A. F. (2021). Classification of scale items with exploratory graph analysis and machine learning methods. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(4), 928–947. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.880914
  39. Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284919
  40. Ledesma, R. D., & Valero-Mora, P. (2007). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(2), 2–11.
  41. Li, Y., Wen, Z., Hau, K.-T., Yuan, K.-H., & Peng, Y. (2020). Effects of cross-loadings on determining the number of factors to retain. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(6), 841–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1745075
  42. Liu, C.-W., & Wang, W.-C. (2016). A comparision of methods for dimensionality assesment of catogorical item responses. Pacific Rim Objective Measurement Symposium (PROMS) 2015 Conference Proceeding, 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37592-7
  43. Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2021). SOLOMON: A method for splitting a sample into equivalent subsamples in factor analysis. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01750-y
  44. Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2021). Factor (Version 12.01.02) [Computer software]. Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
  45. Lorenzo-Seva, U., Timmerman, M. E., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2011). The Hull method for selecting the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(2), 340–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.564527
  46. Navarro-Gonzalez, D., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2020). EFA.MRFA: Dimensionality assessment using minimum rank factor analysis. https://cran.r-project.org/package=EFA.MRFA
  47. Nelson, A. E., DeVellis, R. F., Renner, J. B., Schwartz, T. A., Conaghan, P. G., Kraus, V. B., & Jordan, J. M. (2011). Quantification of the whole-body burden of radiographic osteoarthritis using factor analysis. Arthritis Research & Therapy, 13(5), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/ar3501
  48. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd. ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  49. O’connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200807
  50. O’Connor, B. P. (2022). EFA.dimensions: Exploratory factor analysis functions for assessing dimensionality. https://cran.r-project.org/package=EFA.dimensions
  51. Okçu, V., & Deviren, İ. (2021). Kapsayıcı liderlik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Elektronik Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(20), 321–333.
  52. Osborne, J. W., & Fitzpatrick, D. C. (2012). Replication analysis in exploratory factor analysis: What it is and why it makes your analysis better. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(15). http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=17&n=15
  53. Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Sage.
  54. Preacher, K. J., Zhang, G., Kim, C., & Mels, G. (2013). Choosing the optimal number of factors in exploratory factor analysis: A model selection perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48(1), 28–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.710386
  55. R Core Team. (2021). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
  56. Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4(3), 207. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164671
  57. Revelle, W. (2021). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (Version = 2.1.9). https://cran.r-project.org/package=psych
  58. Ruscio, J., & Roche, B. (2012). Determining the number of factors to retain in an exploratory factor analysis using comparison data of known factorial structure. Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025697
  59. Steiner, M. D., & Grieder, S. (2020). EFAtools: An R package with fast and flexible implementations of exploratory factor analysis tools. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(53), 2521. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02521
  60. Tellioğlu, S. (2021). Türk ve Alman Turistleri Tatile İten ve Çeken Faktörlerin Analizi. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 5(1), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.814273
  61. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding consepts and applications. APA.
  62. Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353
  63. Usta, H., Nal, G., & Gıca, S. (2020). Turkish validity reliability of udvalg for kliniske undersøgelser side effect rating scale (UKU-SERS) in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Yeni Symposium, 58(3), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.5455/NYS.20200621093100
  64. Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293557
  65. Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and Solutions in Human Assessment (pp. 41–71). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4397-8_3
  66. Widaman, K. F. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 3: Data analysis and research publication. (pp. 361–389). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13621-018
  67. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
  68. Wright, M. N., & Ziegler, A. (2017). ranger: A fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in C++ and R. Journal of Statistical Software, 77(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v077.i01
  69. Yang, Y., & Xia, Y. (2015). On the number of factors to retain in exploratory factor analysis for ordered categorical data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(3), 756–772. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0499-2
  70. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.432
  71. Wright, M. N., & Ziegler, A. (2017). ranger: A fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in C++ and R. Journal of Statistical Software, 77(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v077.i01