The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Component Analysis versus Common Factor Analysis: Some issues in Selecting an Appropriate Procedure
Abstract
Should one do a component analysis or a factor analysis? The choice is not obvious, because the two broad classes of procedures serve a similar purpose, and share many important mathematical characteristics. Despite many textbooks describing common factor analysis as the preferred procedure, principal component analysis has been the most widely applied. Here we summarize relevant information for the prospective factor/component analyst. First, we discuss the key algebraic similarities and differences. Next, we analyze a number of theoretical and practical issues. The more practical aspects include: the degree of numeric similarity between solutions from the two methods, some common rules for the number of factors to be retained, effects resulting from overextraction, problems with improper solutions, and comparisons in computational efficiency. Finally, we review some broader theoretical issues: the factor indeterminacy issue, the differences between exploratory and confirmatory procedures, and the issue of latent versus manifest variables.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The application of electronic computers to factor analysis
Kaiser, H. F. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000116 · Cited by 12,459
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns.
Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265 · Cited by 2,880
Self-citationDetermining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations
Velicer, W. F. (1976) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02293557 · Cited by 2,438
Self-citationUnder what conditions does theory obstruct research progress?
Greenwald, A. G., Pratkanis, A. R., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1986) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.93.2.216 · Cited by 574
Cited by
Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.4.3.272 · Cited by 9,587
Scale Development Research: A Content Analysis and Recommendations for Best Practices
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006) · The Counseling Psychologist · doi:10.1177/0011000006288127 · Cited by 4,087
A User's Guide to Principal Components
Leigh, S., & Jackson, J. E. (1993) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1269292 · Cited by 3,332
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105284919 · Cited by 2,053
El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada
Lloret-Segura, S., Ferreres-Traver, A., Hernández-Baeza, A., & Tomás-Marco, I. (2014) · Anales de Psicología · doi:10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361 · Cited by 1,616
Metadata
- Authors
- Velicer, W. F., & Jackson, D. N.
- Venue
- Multivariate Behavioral Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1990-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-28
- ISSN
- 0027-3171 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7906
- OpenAlex
- W1987155630
- Cited by
- 738
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 22.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Component Analysis versus Common Factor Analysis: Some issues in Selecting an Appropriate Procedure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_1
- The paper
- Velicer, W. F., & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Component Analysis versus Common Factor Analysis: Some issues in Selecting an Appropriate Procedure. Multivariate Behavioral Research. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.