2
$\begingroup$

I have 21 items that should load onto four factors. Several of these items had been reverse-coded. However, in a factor analysis, all the reverse coded items load onto one factor (when they actually should load onto four separate ones). I had reverse coded those items prior to running the CFA, but a previous question did suggest I am correct to do this, so what might be the issue here?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

This is quite common and I have seen this many times before. The reverse-coded items share commonalities because they all share a similar methodological detail. If you measured the same construct using a self-report questionnaire and a physiological measure, for example, you would find that the self-report and physiological indices load on different factors because they are different methods, despite measuring the same construct. I would simply explain the reverse-worded factor as it is, a factor comprised of the items that are reverse-worded because these items share a similar response pattern.

Edit: I will also mention that reverse-coding items should not matter. If the items are reverse-worded, while the rest of the items are worded straightforwardly, the items that are reverse-worded will likely correlate strongly simply due to their reverse-worded nature.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ People sometimes talk about trait factors (which you want) and method factors (which are artifacts). In a confirmatory factor analysis framework you can add a method factor and then have the traits that you are interested in, but you can't do this in EFA. $\endgroup$ – Jeremy Miles May 29 '13 at 21:38
  • $\begingroup$ In a CFA you could correlate the errors of the different "methods" and such, but indeed, in an EFA you can only explain the factor. I don't see this as a problem if it is explained clearly. $\endgroup$ – Behacad May 29 '13 at 22:02
  • $\begingroup$ In EFA, you won't get a complex factor structure like that to emerge though, if you've a method artifact, because it tries to rotate to simple structure (and it ain't). $\endgroup$ – Jeremy Miles May 29 '13 at 22:25

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.