The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Stopping Rules in Principal Components Analysis: A Comparison of Heuristical and Statistical Approaches
Abstract
Approaches to determining the number of components to interpret from principal components analysis were compared. Heuristic procedures included: retaining components with eigenvalues (λ) > 1 (i.e., Kaiser—Guttman criterion); components with bootstrapped λ > 1 (bootstrapped Kaiser—Guttman); the scree plot; the broken—stick model; and components with λ totalling to a fixed amount of the total variance. Statistical approaches included: Bartlett's test of sphericity; Bartlett's test of homogeneity of the correlation matrix, Lawley's test of the second λ bootstrapped confidence limits on successive λ (i.e., significant differences between λ); and bootstrapped confidence limits on eigenvector coefficients (i.e., coefficients that differ significantly from zero). All methods were compared using simulated data matrices of uniform correlation structure, patterned matrices of varying correlation structure and data sets of lake morphometry, water chemistry, and benthic invertebrate abundance. The most consistent results were obtained from the broken—stick model and a combined measure using bootstrapped λ and associated eigenvector coefficients. The traditional and bootstrapped Kaiser—Guttman approaches over—estimated the number of nontrivial dimensions as did the fixed—amount—of—variance model. The scree plot consistently estimated one dimension more than the number of simulated dimensions. Barlett's test of sphericity showed inconsistent results. Both Bartlett's test of homogeneity of the correlation matrix and Lawley's test are limited to testing for only one and two dimensions, respectively.
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
Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis
Guttman, L. (1954) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02289162 · Cited by 1,689
Cited by
Abdi, H., & Williams, L. J. (2010) · WIREs Computational Statistics · doi:10.1002/wics.101 · Cited by 11,104
A component based noise correction method (CompCor) for BOLD and perfusion based fMRI
Behzadi, Y., Restom, K., Liau, J., & Liu, T. T. (2007) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.04.042 · Cited by 4,502
Greenacre, M., Groenen, P. J. F., Hastie, T., D’Enza, A. I., Markos, A., & Tuzhilina, E. (2022) · Nature Reviews Methods Primers · doi:10.1038/s43586-022-00184-w · Cited by 1,773
Time-resolved resting-state brain networks
Zalesky, A., Fornito, A., Cocchi, L., Gollo, L. L., & Breakspear, M. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1400181111 · Cited by 753
Single-nucleus and single-cell transcriptomes compared in matched cortical cell types
Bakken, T. E., Hodge, R. D., Miller, J. A., Yao, Z., Nguyen, T. N., Aevermann, B., Barkan, E., Bertagnolli, D., Casper, T., Dee, N., et al. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209648 · Cited by 608
Metadata
- Authors
- Jackson, D. A.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-12
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 2204-2214
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2148654450
- Cited by
- 2,298
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.65
- 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: Stopping Rules in Principal Components Analysis: A Comparison of Heuristical and Statistical Approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1939574
- The paper
- Jackson, D. A. (1993). Stopping Rules in Principal Components Analysis: A Comparison of Heuristical and Statistical Approaches. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939574
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.