CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,634Psychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods and ApplicationsMental Health Research Topics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis

Open access
Timmerman, Marieke E., Lorenzo-Seva, Urbano·2011·Psychological Methods
DOI 10.1037/a0023353
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Parallel analysis (PA) is an often-recommended approach for assessment of the dimensionality of a variable set. PA is known in different variants, which may yield different dimensionality indications. In this article, the authors considered the most appropriate PA procedure to assess the number of common factors underlying ordered polytomously scored variables. They proposed minimum rank factor analysis (MRFA) as an extraction method, rather than the currently applied principal component analysis (PCA) and principal axes factoring. A simulation study, based on data with major and minor factors, showed that all procedures consistently point at the number of major common factors. A polychoric-based PA slightly outperformed a Pearson-based PA, but convergence problems may hamper its empirical application. In empirical practice, PA-MRFA with a 95% threshold based on polychoric correlations or, in case of nonconvergence, Pearson correlations with mean thresholds appear to be a good choice for identification of the number of common factors. PA-MRFA is a common-factor-based method and performed best in the simulation experiment. PA based on PCA with a 95% threshold is second best, as this method showed good performances in the empirically relevant conditions of the simulation experiment.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0023353

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 58 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U.
Affiliations
University of Groningen (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Methods
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2011-06
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
209-220
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
DOI
10.1037/a0023353
OpenAlex
W2100515418
Cited by
1,634
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 104 · 2025: 143 · 2024: 158 · 2023: 181 · 2022: 179 · 2021: 183 · 2020: 154 · 2019: 102 · 2018: 114 · 2017: 81 · 2016: 76 · 2015: 68 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 16
FWCI
38.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Universities (2009SGR1549)
  • Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (PSI2008-00236/PSIC)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
parallel analysis, dimensionality analysis, polychoric correlation, Pearson correlation, principal component analysis
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Mathematical Computing, Psychology, Research, Research Design, Statistics as Topic, Models, Statistical, Sample Size, Principal Component Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review