1
$\begingroup$

Will orthogonal relationships show up when using Oblique rotation?

Based on the articles I have read on EFA rotation my understanding is that although oblique rotation procedures might be expected to be superior to orthogonal rotation procedures on theoretical grounds, that superiority has yet to be demonstrated empirically.

References

Bandalos, D. L., & Boehm-Kaufman, M. R. (2009). Four common misconceptions in exploratory factor analysis. In C. E. Lance, & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 61-88). New York, NY: Routledge.

Tinsley, H. E., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 414-424.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Orthogonal rotations are special cases of oblique rotations, so yes, they can show up.

(Can you provide better links to your articles?)

Edit: I don't think that the Bandalos and Boehn-Haufman says what you say it said. E.g. the end of that section of the chapter says [if you have done both orthogonal and oblique rotations] "the results from the oblique rotation are probably the best representation."

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I tracked down the references and updated the OP. Letting you know because I was not sure if you were just pointing out that they would be helpful to other readers, or whether you wanted them to inform your response. $\endgroup$ – jsakaluk Dec 27 '17 at 20:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks - I was interested in them. (I have the Lance and Vandenberg book - I'll take a look.) $\endgroup$ – Jeremy Miles Dec 27 '17 at 20:05
  • $\begingroup$ A random follow-up, since you have the Lance & Vandenberg book: is it worth owning? I skimmed the table of contents while looking it up and it seemed like it could be a helpful resource, but I wasn't sure of the quality of chapters. $\endgroup$ – jsakaluk Dec 27 '17 at 20:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I haven't read the whole thing (and I haven't skimmed most of the chapters for years) but some of them are good. I often used to find myself citing the Chan chapter ("So why ask me?") when defending self-report data. $\endgroup$ – Jeremy Miles Dec 27 '17 at 21:38
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the updates to the post. I provided a link for the Bandalos & Boehm-Kaufman (2009) article. $\endgroup$ – Dementedpenguin Dec 28 '17 at 0:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.