On exploratory factor analysis: A review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use

Exploratory factor analysis (hereafter, factor analysis) is a complex statistical method that is integral to many fields of research. Using factor analysis requires researchers to make several decisions, each of which affects the solutions generated. In this paper, we focus on five major decisions t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of nursing studies 2014-03, Vol.51 (3), p.511-521
Hauptverfasser: Gaskin, Cadeyrn J., Happell, Brenda
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 521
container_issue 3
container_start_page 511
container_title International journal of nursing studies
container_volume 51
creator Gaskin, Cadeyrn J.
Happell, Brenda
description Exploratory factor analysis (hereafter, factor analysis) is a complex statistical method that is integral to many fields of research. Using factor analysis requires researchers to make several decisions, each of which affects the solutions generated. In this paper, we focus on five major decisions that are made in conducting factor analysis: (i) establishing how large the sample needs to be, (ii) choosing between factor analysis and principal components analysis, (iii) determining the number of factors to retain, (iv) selecting a method of data extraction, and (v) deciding upon the methods of factor rotation. The purpose of this paper is threefold: (i) to review the literature with respect to these five decisions, (ii) to assess current practices in nursing research, and (iii) to offer recommendations for future use. The literature reviews illustrate that factor analysis remains a dynamic field of study, with recent research having practical implications for those who use this statistical method. The assessment was conducted on 54 factor analysis (and principal components analysis) solutions presented in the results sections of 28 papers published in the 2012 volumes of the 10 highest ranked nursing journals, based on their 5-year impact factors. The main findings from the assessment were that researchers commonly used (a) participants-to-items ratios for determining sample sizes (used for 43% of solutions), (b) principal components analysis (61%) rather than factor analysis (39%), (c) the eigenvalues greater than one rule and scree tests to decide upon the numbers of factors/components to retain (61% and 46%, respectively), (d) principal components analysis and unweighted least squares as methods of data extraction (61% and 19%, respectively), and (e) the Varimax method of rotation (44%). In general, well-established, but out-dated, heuristics and practices informed decision making with respect to the performance of factor analysis in nursing studies. Based on the findings from factor analysis research, it seems likely that the use of such methods may have had a material, adverse effect on the solutions generated. We offer recommendations for future practice with respect to each of the five decisions discussed in this paper.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.10.005
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1514420129</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0020748913002800</els_id><sourcerecordid>1514420129</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c495t-e64fd7181cf830dd02caed6c2c2e5c9914c9d9ba05890241e137fb341f76ce113</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU9v1DAQxS0EotvCV6gsceFAFjt2_pgTVUWhUqVeWomb5bXHkqMkXuyYslc-eSfalgMXOM149Js38nuEnHO25Yy3H4dtGOaS8lK2NeMCh1vGmhdkw_tOVFLx7y_JhrGaVZ3s1Qk5zXlgjPGe9a_JSS15L2QnN-T37Uzh136MySwxHag3Fis1sxkPOeRP9IIm-BnggUaPnYV5ofh2MFv4gBg1OUPO0zpHwpaU1nafUCccEbfuxQkRZ5YQ50w9XvBlKQloyfCGvPJmzPD2qZ6R-6svd5ffqpvbr9eXFzeVlapZKmildx3vufW9YM6x2hpwra1tDY1VikurnNoZ1vSK4QeBi87vhOS-ay1wLs7I-6PuPsUfBfKip5AtjKOZIZasecOlRDNr9T-oYLKR9ar67i90iCWhfSuF_otecYFUe6Rsijkn8HqfwmTSQXOm10D1oJ8D1Wug6xwDxcXzJ_mym8D9WXtOEIHPRwDQOgwq6WzDmo4LaPuiXQz_uvEIjQa2jA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1502038913</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>On exploratory factor analysis: A review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Gaskin, Cadeyrn J. ; Happell, Brenda</creator><creatorcontrib>Gaskin, Cadeyrn J. ; Happell, Brenda</creatorcontrib><description>Exploratory factor analysis (hereafter, factor analysis) is a complex statistical method that is integral to many fields of research. Using factor analysis requires researchers to make several decisions, each of which affects the solutions generated. In this paper, we focus on five major decisions that are made in conducting factor analysis: (i) establishing how large the sample needs to be, (ii) choosing between factor analysis and principal components analysis, (iii) determining the number of factors to retain, (iv) selecting a method of data extraction, and (v) deciding upon the methods of factor rotation. The purpose of this paper is threefold: (i) to review the literature with respect to these five decisions, (ii) to assess current practices in nursing research, and (iii) to offer recommendations for future use. The literature reviews illustrate that factor analysis remains a dynamic field of study, with recent research having practical implications for those who use this statistical method. The assessment was conducted on 54 factor analysis (and principal components analysis) solutions presented in the results sections of 28 papers published in the 2012 volumes of the 10 highest ranked nursing journals, based on their 5-year impact factors. The main findings from the assessment were that researchers commonly used (a) participants-to-items ratios for determining sample sizes (used for 43% of solutions), (b) principal components analysis (61%) rather than factor analysis (39%), (c) the eigenvalues greater than one rule and scree tests to decide upon the numbers of factors/components to retain (61% and 46%, respectively), (d) principal components analysis and unweighted least squares as methods of data extraction (61% and 19%, respectively), and (e) the Varimax method of rotation (44%). In general, well-established, but out-dated, heuristics and practices informed decision making with respect to the performance of factor analysis in nursing studies. Based on the findings from factor analysis research, it seems likely that the use of such methods may have had a material, adverse effect on the solutions generated. We offer recommendations for future practice with respect to each of the five decisions discussed in this paper.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-7489</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-491X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.10.005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24183474</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Clinical medicine ; Discriminant analysis ; Evidence-Based Practice ; Factor analysis ; Factor Analysis, Statistical ; Measurement ; Nursing ; Nursing care ; Nursing research ; Principal Component Analysis ; Principal components analysis ; Research design ; Review literature as topic ; Statistics ; Statistics as topic</subject><ispartof>International journal of nursing studies, 2014-03, Vol.51 (3), p.511-521</ispartof><rights>2013</rights><rights>Crown Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Mar 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c495t-e64fd7181cf830dd02caed6c2c2e5c9914c9d9ba05890241e137fb341f76ce113</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c495t-e64fd7181cf830dd02caed6c2c2e5c9914c9d9ba05890241e137fb341f76ce113</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748913002800$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,30976,65534</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24183474$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gaskin, Cadeyrn J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Happell, Brenda</creatorcontrib><title>On exploratory factor analysis: A review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use</title><title>International journal of nursing studies</title><addtitle>Int J Nurs Stud</addtitle><description>Exploratory factor analysis (hereafter, factor analysis) is a complex statistical method that is integral to many fields of research. Using factor analysis requires researchers to make several decisions, each of which affects the solutions generated. In this paper, we focus on five major decisions that are made in conducting factor analysis: (i) establishing how large the sample needs to be, (ii) choosing between factor analysis and principal components analysis, (iii) determining the number of factors to retain, (iv) selecting a method of data extraction, and (v) deciding upon the methods of factor rotation. The purpose of this paper is threefold: (i) to review the literature with respect to these five decisions, (ii) to assess current practices in nursing research, and (iii) to offer recommendations for future use. The literature reviews illustrate that factor analysis remains a dynamic field of study, with recent research having practical implications for those who use this statistical method. The assessment was conducted on 54 factor analysis (and principal components analysis) solutions presented in the results sections of 28 papers published in the 2012 volumes of the 10 highest ranked nursing journals, based on their 5-year impact factors. The main findings from the assessment were that researchers commonly used (a) participants-to-items ratios for determining sample sizes (used for 43% of solutions), (b) principal components analysis (61%) rather than factor analysis (39%), (c) the eigenvalues greater than one rule and scree tests to decide upon the numbers of factors/components to retain (61% and 46%, respectively), (d) principal components analysis and unweighted least squares as methods of data extraction (61% and 19%, respectively), and (e) the Varimax method of rotation (44%). In general, well-established, but out-dated, heuristics and practices informed decision making with respect to the performance of factor analysis in nursing studies. Based on the findings from factor analysis research, it seems likely that the use of such methods may have had a material, adverse effect on the solutions generated. We offer recommendations for future practice with respect to each of the five decisions discussed in this paper.</description><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Discriminant analysis</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Practice</subject><subject>Factor analysis</subject><subject>Factor Analysis, Statistical</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Nursing care</subject><subject>Nursing research</subject><subject>Principal Component Analysis</subject><subject>Principal components analysis</subject><subject>Research design</subject><subject>Review literature as topic</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><subject>Statistics as topic</subject><issn>0020-7489</issn><issn>1873-491X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU9v1DAQxS0EotvCV6gsceFAFjt2_pgTVUWhUqVeWomb5bXHkqMkXuyYslc-eSfalgMXOM149Js38nuEnHO25Yy3H4dtGOaS8lK2NeMCh1vGmhdkw_tOVFLx7y_JhrGaVZ3s1Qk5zXlgjPGe9a_JSS15L2QnN-T37Uzh136MySwxHag3Fis1sxkPOeRP9IIm-BnggUaPnYV5ofh2MFv4gBg1OUPO0zpHwpaU1nafUCccEbfuxQkRZ5YQ50w9XvBlKQloyfCGvPJmzPD2qZ6R-6svd5ffqpvbr9eXFzeVlapZKmildx3vufW9YM6x2hpwra1tDY1VikurnNoZ1vSK4QeBi87vhOS-ay1wLs7I-6PuPsUfBfKip5AtjKOZIZasecOlRDNr9T-oYLKR9ar67i90iCWhfSuF_otecYFUe6Rsijkn8HqfwmTSQXOm10D1oJ8D1Wug6xwDxcXzJ_mym8D9WXtOEIHPRwDQOgwq6WzDmo4LaPuiXQz_uvEIjQa2jA</recordid><startdate>201403</startdate><enddate>201403</enddate><creator>Gaskin, Cadeyrn J.</creator><creator>Happell, Brenda</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201403</creationdate><title>On exploratory factor analysis: A review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use</title><author>Gaskin, Cadeyrn J. ; Happell, Brenda</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c495t-e64fd7181cf830dd02caed6c2c2e5c9914c9d9ba05890241e137fb341f76ce113</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Discriminant analysis</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Practice</topic><topic>Factor analysis</topic><topic>Factor Analysis, Statistical</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Nursing care</topic><topic>Nursing research</topic><topic>Principal Component Analysis</topic><topic>Principal components analysis</topic><topic>Research design</topic><topic>Review literature as topic</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><topic>Statistics as topic</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gaskin, Cadeyrn J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Happell, Brenda</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of nursing studies</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gaskin, Cadeyrn J.</au><au>Happell, Brenda</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>On exploratory factor analysis: A review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use</atitle><jtitle>International journal of nursing studies</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Nurs Stud</addtitle><date>2014-03</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>511</spage><epage>521</epage><pages>511-521</pages><issn>0020-7489</issn><eissn>1873-491X</eissn><abstract>Exploratory factor analysis (hereafter, factor analysis) is a complex statistical method that is integral to many fields of research. Using factor analysis requires researchers to make several decisions, each of which affects the solutions generated. In this paper, we focus on five major decisions that are made in conducting factor analysis: (i) establishing how large the sample needs to be, (ii) choosing between factor analysis and principal components analysis, (iii) determining the number of factors to retain, (iv) selecting a method of data extraction, and (v) deciding upon the methods of factor rotation. The purpose of this paper is threefold: (i) to review the literature with respect to these five decisions, (ii) to assess current practices in nursing research, and (iii) to offer recommendations for future use. The literature reviews illustrate that factor analysis remains a dynamic field of study, with recent research having practical implications for those who use this statistical method. The assessment was conducted on 54 factor analysis (and principal components analysis) solutions presented in the results sections of 28 papers published in the 2012 volumes of the 10 highest ranked nursing journals, based on their 5-year impact factors. The main findings from the assessment were that researchers commonly used (a) participants-to-items ratios for determining sample sizes (used for 43% of solutions), (b) principal components analysis (61%) rather than factor analysis (39%), (c) the eigenvalues greater than one rule and scree tests to decide upon the numbers of factors/components to retain (61% and 46%, respectively), (d) principal components analysis and unweighted least squares as methods of data extraction (61% and 19%, respectively), and (e) the Varimax method of rotation (44%). In general, well-established, but out-dated, heuristics and practices informed decision making with respect to the performance of factor analysis in nursing studies. Based on the findings from factor analysis research, it seems likely that the use of such methods may have had a material, adverse effect on the solutions generated. We offer recommendations for future practice with respect to each of the five decisions discussed in this paper.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>24183474</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.10.005</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0020-7489
ispartof International journal of nursing studies, 2014-03, Vol.51 (3), p.511-521
issn 0020-7489
1873-491X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1514420129
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Clinical medicine
Discriminant analysis
Evidence-Based Practice
Factor analysis
Factor Analysis, Statistical
Measurement
Nursing
Nursing care
Nursing research
Principal Component Analysis
Principal components analysis
Research design
Review literature as topic
Statistics
Statistics as topic
title On exploratory factor analysis: A review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T16%3A02%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=On%20exploratory%20factor%20analysis:%20A%20review%20of%20recent%20evidence,%20an%20assessment%20of%20current%20practice,%20and%20recommendations%20for%20future%20use&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20nursing%20studies&rft.au=Gaskin,%20Cadeyrn%20J.&rft.date=2014-03&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=511&rft.epage=521&rft.pages=511-521&rft.issn=0020-7489&rft.eissn=1873-491X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.10.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1514420129%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1502038913&rft_id=info:pmid/24183474&rft_els_id=S0020748913002800&rfr_iscdi=true