How many factors to retain in exploratory factor analysis? A critical overview of factor retention methods.

IF 7.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological methods Pub Date : 2025-02-13 DOI:10.1037/met0000733
David Goretzko
{"title":"How many factors to retain in exploratory factor analysis? A critical overview of factor retention methods.","authors":"David Goretzko","doi":"10.1037/met0000733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Determining the number of factors is a decisive, yet very difficult decision a researcher faces when conducting an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Over the last decades, numerous so-called factor retention criteria have been developed to infer the latent dimensionality from empirical data. While some tutorials and review articles on EFA exist which give recommendations on how to determine the number of latent factors, there is no comprehensive overview that categorizes the existing approaches and integrates the results of existing simulation studies evaluating the various methods in different data conditions. With this article, we want to provide such an overview enabling (applied) researchers to make an informed decision when choosing a factor retention criterion. Summarizing the most important results from recent simulation studies, we provide guidance when to rely on which method and call for a more thoughtful handling of overly simple heuristics. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000733","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Determining the number of factors is a decisive, yet very difficult decision a researcher faces when conducting an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Over the last decades, numerous so-called factor retention criteria have been developed to infer the latent dimensionality from empirical data. While some tutorials and review articles on EFA exist which give recommendations on how to determine the number of latent factors, there is no comprehensive overview that categorizes the existing approaches and integrates the results of existing simulation studies evaluating the various methods in different data conditions. With this article, we want to provide such an overview enabling (applied) researchers to make an informed decision when choosing a factor retention criterion. Summarizing the most important results from recent simulation studies, we provide guidance when to rely on which method and call for a more thoughtful handling of overly simple heuristics. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索性因素分析中需要保留多少因素?因子保留方法的关键概述。
在进行探索性因素分析(EFA)时,确定因素的数量是一个决定性的,但非常困难的决定。在过去的几十年里,已经开发了许多所谓的因素保留标准,以从经验数据中推断潜在维度。虽然存在一些关于全民教育的教程和评论文章,就如何确定潜在因素的数量提出建议,但没有对现有方法进行分类的全面概述,也没有整合现有模拟研究的结果,评估不同数据条件下的各种方法。在本文中,我们希望提供这样一个概述,使(应用)研究人员能够在选择因素保留标准时做出明智的决定。总结了最近模拟研究中最重要的结果,我们提供了何时依赖哪种方法的指导,并呼吁对过于简单的启发式进行更周到的处理。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
期刊最新文献
Drawing credible directed acyclic graphs for causal inference. The invariance partial pruning approach to the network comparison in time-series and panel data. Supplemental Material for The Invariance Partial Pruning Approach to the Network Comparison in Time-Series and Panel Data From the 1940s to 2020s: A review of the current state of forced-choice methodology. Supplemental Material for From the 1940s to 2020s: A Review of the Current State of Forced-Choice Methodology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1