>don't necessarily like, called principle components analysis. Without
>going into detail it makes some assumptions about how the individual
>items are related to each other, frequently overestimating this
>communality. Its good for a first estimation of the underlying
>factors, and for the initial development of a questionnaire, but for
>determining the actual structure of the factors involved, I think its
>inadequate.
>
>I'll be downloading the data today and using some other analysis on
>it later today and see what I come up with.
OK managed to translate their data and ran it through a couple of my
stats programs. The confirmatory factor analysis showed that their
theoretical model adequately explained the data (p >.20 for possible
explanations). I also ran a principle axes factor analysis, this is
similar to a principle components analysis, with a major crucial
difference, it uses communality estimates rather than 1's (maximal
variance estimate). What I found is that while there was a similar
factor structure, the left/right and pragmatic/idealist dimensions
were not as independent as the authors assumed. I found similar
results with a maximum likelihood factor analysis. When I compared
their model of the data to the one I derived, there was no
significant statistical difference between the two models however. So
as far as I'm concerned its a legit estimate of political orientation.
larry
--
Larry C. Lyons
========================================================
Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
========================================================
Chaos, Panic and Disorder. My work here is done.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
