Cited by 3,104Psychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods and ApplicationsMental Health Research Topics

Factor Retention Decisions in Exploratory Factor Analysis: a Tutorial on Parallel Analysis

Open access
Hayton, James C., Allen, David G., Scarpello, Vida·2004·Organizational Research Methods

Abstract

The decision of how many factors to retain is a critical component of exploratory factor analysis. Evidence is presented that parallel analysis is one of the most accurate factor retention methods while also being one of the most underutilized in management and organizational research. Therefore, a step-by-step guide to performing parallel analysis is described, and an example is provided using data from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Recommendations for making factor retention decisions are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1094428104263675

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Four factors were extracted for both the supplier and consumer perspectives, with the number of factors retained decided by the Minimum-Average-Partial-Test (MAP test).

    “The decision on how many factors to retain was based on the Minimum-Average-Partial-Test (MAP test, Hayton et al. 2004). We therefore decided to extract four factors for both perspectives.”

    From Trust in the Sharing Economy (2016) · cites this paper as Hayton et al. 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V.
Affiliations
  • Utah State University (US)
  • University of Memphis (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
Venue
Organizational Research Methods
Published
2004-04
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
191-205
ISSN
  • 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7425
OpenAlex
W2160643014
Cited by
3,104
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 214 · 2025: 203 · 2024: 211 · 2023: 209 · 2022: 223 · 2021: 220 · 2020: 222 · 2019: 177 · 2018: 194 · 2017: 153 · 2016: 153 · 2015: 149 · 2014: 147 · 2013: 137 · 2012: 148
FWCI
22.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Organizational Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della Ricerca - Bocconi (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
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
factor retention, parallel analysis, exploratory factor analysis, Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, satisfaction measurement

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