Population and sample simulation approaches were used to compare the performance of parallel analysis using principal component analysis (PA-PCA) and parallel analysis using principal axis factoring (PA-PAF) to identify the number of underlying factors. Additionally, the accuracies of the mean eigenvalue and the 95th percentile eigenvalue criteria were examined. The 95th percentile criterion was preferable for assessing the first eigenvalue using either extraction method. In assessing subsequent eigenvalues, PA-PCA tended to perform as well as or better than PA-PAF for models with one factor or multiple minimally correlated factors; the relative performance of the mean eigenvalue and the 95th percentile eigenvalue criteria depended on the number of variables per factor. PA-PAF using the mean eigenvalue criterion generally performed best if factors were more than minimally correlated or if one or more strong general factors as well as group factors were present.
Beauducel, A. ( 2001). Problem with parallel analysis in data sets with oblique simple structure. Methods of Psychological Research Online , 6, 141-157.
2.
Buja, A., & Eyuboglu, N. ( 1992). Remarks on parallel analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27, 509-540.
3.
Cattell, R.B. ( 1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
4.
Cliff, N. ( 1988). The eigenvalues-greater-than-one rule and the reliability of components. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 276-279.
5.
Cota, A.A., Longman, R.S., Holden, R.R., Fekken, G.C., & Xinaris, S. ( 1993). Interpolating 95th percentile eigenvalues from random data: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 585-596.
6.
Crawford, A., Green, S.B., Levy, R., Lo, W.-J., Scott, L., Svetina, D., & Thompson, M.S. (2009, April). Evaluation of parallel analysis methods for determining the number of factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
7.
Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., & Strahan, E.J. ( 1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299.
8.
Floyd, F.J., & Widaman, K.F. ( 1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment , 7, 286-299.
9.
Ford, J.K., MacCallum, R.C., & Tait, M. ( 1986). The applications of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology , 39, 291-314.
10.
Glorfeld, L.W. ( 1995). An improvement on Horn’s parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 377-393.
11.
Guttman, L. ( 1954). Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis . Psychometrika, 19, 149-161.
12.
Hayton, J.C., Allen, D.G., & Scarpello, V. ( 2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods , 7, 191-205.
13.
Horn, J.L. ( 1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.
14.
Humphreys, L.G., & Montanelli, R.G. (1975). An investigation of the parallel analysis criterion for determining the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10, 193-206.
15.
Kaiser, H.F. ( 1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
16.
McDonald, R.P. ( 1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
O’Connor, B.P. ( 2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396-402.
18.
Preacher, K.J., & MacCallum, R.C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Understanding Statistics , 2, 13-43.
Rindskopf, D., & Rose, T. ( 1988). Some theory and applications of confirmatory second-order factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 51-67.
21.
Snook, S.C., & Gorsuch, R.L. ( 1989). Component analysis versus common factor analysis: A Monte Carlo study. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 148-154.
22.
Steger, M.F. ( 2006). An illustration of issues in factor extraction and identification of dimensionality in psychological assessment data. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 263-272.
23.
Turner, N.E. ( 1998). The effect of common variance and structure pattern on random data eigenvalues: Implications for the accuracy of parallel analysis . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 541-568.
24.
Velicer, W.F. ( 1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321-327.
25.
Velicer, W.F., Eaton, C.A., & Fava, J.L. ( 2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In R. D. Goffin , & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas Jackson at seventy (pp. 41-71). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
26.
Widaman, K.F. ( 1993). Common factor analysis versus principal component analysis: Differential bias in representing model parameters? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 263-311.
27.
Zwick, W.R., & Velicer, W.F. ( 1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432-442.
