The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Repairing Tom Swift's Electric Factor Analysis Machine
Open accessAbstract
Proper use of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) requires the researcher to make a series of careful decisions. Despite attempts by Floyd and Widaman (1995), Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, and Strahan (1999), and others to elucidate critical issues involved in these decisions, examples of questionable use of EFA are still common in the applied factor analysis literature. Poor decisions regarding the model to be used, the criteria used to decide how many factors to retain, and the rotation method can have drastic consequences for the quality and meaningfulness of factor analytic results. One commonly used approach-principal components analysis, retention of components with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and varimax rotation of these components-is shown to have potentially serious negative consequences. In addition, choosing arbitrary thresholds for factor loadings to be considered large, using single indicators for factors, and violating the linearity assumptions underlying EFA can have negative consequences for interpretation of results. It is demonstrated that, when decisions are carefully made, EFA can yield unambiguous and meaningful results.
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
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286 · Cited by 3,970
Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis
Guttman, L. (1954) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02289162 · Cited by 1,689
Armstrong, J. S. (1967) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1967.10479849 · Cited by 165
Cited by
Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis
Hair, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069 · Cited by 5,446
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
Howard, M. C. (2016) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664 · Cited by 1,349
Who Sees Human?: The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism
Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610369336 · Cited by 1,228
Ten Steps in Scale Development and Reporting: A Guide for Researchers
Carpenter, S. (2018) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583 · Cited by 1,141
Metadata
- Authors
- Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C.
- Venue
- Understanding Statistics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-02-03
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 13-43
- ISSN
- 1532-8031 (ISSN-L)
- 1534-844X
- OpenAlex
- W2139285440
- Cited by
- 864
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 25.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Repairing Tom Swift's Electric Factor Analysis Machine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15328031us0201_02
- The paper
- Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift's Electric Factor Analysis Machine. Understanding Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328031us0201_02
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.