Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:20:49.038Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discrepancies Between Factor Analysis and Multivariate Discrimination Among Groups As Applied to Personality Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

Lowell H. Storms
Lowell H. Storms*
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, Maudsley Hospital, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is clearly advantageous to the personality theorist to know which of his measures covary and to what extent. The results of factor analyses can be useful in summarizing some of the patterns of covariation and classifying response measures. An indefinitely large number of sets of factors may equally well describe the same set of data, however, and, before any choice of one particular set of factors, dimensions, principal components, etc., can be considered as revealing basic intervening variables or constructs in a personality theory, independent evidence must be provided. It is the purpose of this paper to reveal some of the pitfalls in making such a choice by showing how concentration on one set of factors obtained by analysing a multivariate scatter can lead to a serious loss of information when applied to the analysis of group differences in the same set of data and can suggest interpretations which are at odds with the full evidence.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 104 , Issue 436 , July 1958 , pp. 713 - 721
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1958 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bartlett, M. S., “Tests of significance in factor analysis”, Brit. J. Psychol. Stats. Sec., 1950, 3, 77–85.Google Scholar
2. Eysenck, H. J., “Cortical inhibition, figural after-effect, and theory of personality”, J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, 51, 94–106.Google Scholar
3. Idem , “Psychiatric diagnosis as a psychological and statistical problem”, Psychol. Rep., 1955, 1, 3–17.Google Scholar
4. Idem , “A dynamic theory of anxiety and hysteria”, J. Ment. Sci., 1955, 101, 28–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Idem, The Dynamics of Anxiety and Hysteria, 1957. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
6. Hildebrand, H. P., “A factorial study of introversion-extraversion by means of objective tests”, 1953. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of London.Google Scholar
7. Idem , “A factorial study of introversion-extraversion”, Brit. J. Psychol. In press.Google Scholar
8. Mather, K. S., Statistical Analysis in Biology, 1946. London: Methuen and Co.Google Scholar
9. Rao, C. R., and Slater, P., “Multivariate analysis applied to differences among neurotic groups”, Brit. J. Psychol., Stat. Sec., 1949, 2, 17–29.Google Scholar
10. Idem, Advanced Statistical Methods in Biometric Research, 1952. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
11. Thompson, G. H., The Factorial Analysis of Human Ability, 1951. London: Univ. of London Press.Google Scholar
12. Watts, A. F., and Slater, P., The Allocation of Primary School Leavers to Courses of Secondary Education, 1950. London: Newnes Educational Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.