It basically means that it is a figment of one's imagination. Technically, a non-identifiable model is not unique -- the data can be explained as well by other models. It may be that the authors you cite, were thinking about the fact that alternative "meaningful" patterns can be obtained by rotating the factors; although there are more serious identifiably problems.
Steven Carchon wrote: > > Hello, > > During my statistical reading, I encountered the following : "the > factor model is generally not identifiable". What does this mean > actually and when is a factor model identifiable then ? What are the > conditions ? > > Many thanks, > Steven -- Bob Wheeler --- http://www.bobwheeler.com/ ECHIP, Inc. Randomness comes in bunches . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
