Previous research has not shown a clear relationship between order analytic and factor analytic approaches to assessing the dimensionality of binary data. This study compared factor analysis with three order analy sis procedures. Comparisons were based on eight data sets with known dimensionality and two multidimen sional sets of mathematics data. Two of the order analysis procedures fared poorly in reproducing the factor structure of the datasets. The third procedure re produced the factors for datasets with orthogonal fac tors but failed to reproduce the factors for datasets containing oblique factors. Reasons for the differences between these procedures are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Armstrong, J.W., & Soelberg, P.On the interpretation of factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin,1968, 70, 361-364.
2.
Bart, W.M.An empirical inquiry into the relationship between test factor structure and test hierarchical structure. Applied Psychological Measurement , 1978, 2, 331-335.
3.
Birenbaum, M., & Tatsuoka, K.K.The use of information from wrong responses in measuring students' achievement (Research Report 80-1). Urbana IL: Computer-based Education Research Laboratory , 1980.
4.
Bock, R., & Lieberman, M.Fitting a response model of n dichotomously scored items. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 179-197.
5.
Chilton, R.J.A review and comparison of simple statistical tests for scalogram analysis . American Sociological Review, 1969, 34, 238-245.
6.
Cliff, N.A theory of consistency or ordering generalizable to tailored testing. Psychometrika, 1977, 42, 375-399.
7.
Comrey, A.L.A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press, 1973.
8.
Cudeck, R.A comparative study of indices for internal consistency. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1980, 17, 117-130.
9.
Krus, D.J.Order analysis of binary data matrices. Los Angeles: Theta Press, 1975.
10.
Krus, D.J.Order analysis: An inferential model of dimensional analysis and scaling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1977, 37, 587-601.
Krus, D.J.,Weidman, J.C., & Bland, P.C. Ssie : Semiprojective scales of institutional evaluation . Research in Higher Education, 1975, 3, 131-138.
16.
Krus, D.J., & Weiss, D.J.Empirical comparison of factor and order analysis on prestructured and random data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1976 , 11, 95-104.
17.
McNemar, Q.Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika, 1947, 12, 153-157.
18.
Reynolds, T. Ergo: A new approach to multidimensional item analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1981, 41, 643-660.
19.
Schooler, C.A note of extreme caution on the use of Guttman scales. American Journal of Sociology, 1968, 74, 296-301.
20.
Schuessler, K.F.A note on the statistical significance of scalogram. Sociometry , 1961, 24, 312-318.
21.
Thurstone, L.L.Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947.
22.
Tucker, L.R., Koopman, R.F., & Linn, R.L.Evaluation of factor analytic research procedures by means of simulated correlation matrices. Psychometrika, 1969, 34, 421-459.
Wise, S.L.Using partial orders to determine unidimensional item sets appropriate for item response theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York, March 1982.
