Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 441

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Parallel Analysis: a method for determining significant principal components

Franklin, Scott B., Gibson, David J., Robertson, Philip A., Pohlmann, John T., Fralish, James S.·1995·Journal of Vegetation Science

Abstract

Abstract. Numerous ecological studies use Principal Components Analysis (PCA) for exploratory analysis and data reduction. Determination of the number of components to retain is the most crucial problem confronting the researcher when using PCA. An incorrect choice may lead to the underextraction of components, but commonly results in overextraction. Of several methods proposed to determine the significance of principal components, Parallel Analysis (PA) has proven consistently accurate in determining the threshold for significant components, variable loadings, and analytical statistics when decomposing a correlation matrix. In this procedure, eigenvalues from a data set prior to rotation are compared with those from a matrix of random values of the same dimensionality (p variables and n samples). PCA eigenvalues from the data greater than PA eigenvalues from the corresponding random data can be retained. All components with eigenvalues below this threshold value should be considered spurious. We illustrate Parallel Analysis on an environmental data set. We reviewed all articles utilizing PCA or Factor Analysis (FA) from 1987 to 1993 from Ecology, Ecological Monographs, Journal of Vegetation Science and Journal of Ecology. Analyses were first separated into those PCA which decomposed a correlation matrix and those PCA which decomposed a covariance matrix. Parallel Analysis (PA) was applied for each PCA/FA found in the literature. Of 39 analy ses (in 22 articles), 29 (74.4 %) considered no threshold rule, presumably retaining interpretable components. According to the PA results, 26 (66.7 %) overextracted components. This overextraction may have resulted in potentially misleading interpretation of spurious components. It is suggested that the routine use of PA in multivariate ordination will increase confidence in the results and reduce the subjective interpretation of supposedly objective methods.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3236261

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 44 references

Cited by

See all 441

Metadata

Authors
Franklin, S. B., Gibson, D. J., Robertson, P. A., Pohlmann, J. T., & Fralish, J. S.
Venue
Journal of Vegetation Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1995-02
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
99-106
ISSN
  • 1100-9233 (ISSN-L)
  • 1654-1103
OpenAlex
W2017071524
Cited by
441
References
44
FWCI
3.04
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: Parallel Analysis: a method for determining significant principal components. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3236261
The paper
Franklin, S. B., Gibson, D. J., Robertson, P. A., Pohlmann, J. T., & Fralish, J. S. (1995). Parallel Analysis: a method for determining significant principal components. Journal of Vegetation Science. https://doi.org/10.2307/3236261

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.