EPS 651 Multivariate Analysis Factor Analysis, Principal Components Analysis, and Neural Network Analysis (Self-Organizing Maps) For next week: , R., & Ninness, S. (2012) Behavioral and Biological Neural Network Analyses: A Common Pathway toward Continue with T&F Chapter 13 nd please read the study below posted on our webpag
75
Embed
1 EPS 651 Multivariate Analysis Factor Analysis, Principal Components Analysis, and Neural Network Analysis (Self-Organizing Maps) For next week: Ninness,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
EPS 651 Multivariate Analysis
Factor Analysis, Principal Components Analysis,
and Neural Network Analysis (Self-Organizing Maps)
For next week:
Ninness, C., Lauter, J. Coffee, M., Clary, L., Kelly, E., Rumph, M., Rumph, R., Kyle, R., & Ninness, S. (2012) Behavioral and Biological Neural Network Analyses: A Common Pathway toward Pattern Recognition and Prediction. The Psychological Record, 62, 579-598. TPR_VOL62 NO4.pdf
Continue with T&F Chapter 13and please read the study below posted on our webpage:
Principal components analysis (PCA) and Factor Analysis are methods of data reduction:
Suppose that you have a dozen variables that are correlated. You might use principal components analysis to reduce your 12 measures to a few principal components. For example, you may be most interested in obtaining the component scores (which are variables that are added to your data set) and/or to look at the dimensionality of the data. For example, if two components are extracted and those two components accounted for 68% of the total variance, then we would say that two dimensions in the component space account for 68% of the variance. Unlike factor analysis, principal components analysis is not usually used to identify underlying latent variables.
If raw data are used, the procedure will create the original correlation matrix or covariance matrix, as specified by the user. If the correlation matrix is used, the variables are standardized and the total variance will equal the number of variables used in the analysis (because each standardized variable has a variance equal to 1). If the “covariance matrix” is used, the variables will remain in their original metric. However, one must take care to use variables whose variances and scales are similar. Unlike factor analysis, which analyzes the common variance, the original matrix in a principal components analysis analyzes the total variance. Also, principal components analysis assumes that each original measure is collected without measurement error [direct quote].
Factor analysis is a method of data reduction also – forgiving relative to PCA Factor Analysis seeks to find underlying unobservable (latent) variables that are reflected in the observed variables (manifest variables). There are many different methods that can be used to conduct a factor analysis (such as principal axis factor, maximum likelihood, generalized least squares, unweighted least squares). There are also many different types of rotations that can be done after the initial extraction of factors, including orthogonal rotations, such as varimax and equimax, which impose the restriction that the factors cannot be correlated, and oblique rotations, such as promax, which allow the factors to be correlated with one another. You also need to determine the number of factors that you want to extract. Given the number of factor analytic techniques and options, it is not surprising that different analysts could reach very different results analyzing the same data set. However, all analysts are looking for a simple structure. A simple structure is pattern of results such that each variable loads highly onto one and only one factor. [direct quote]
What does each factor mean? Interpretation? Your callWhat is the percentage of variance in the data accounted for by the factors? SPSS & psyNet will show youWhich factors account for the most variance? SPSS & psyNet How well does the factor structure fit a given theory? Your call
What would each subject’s score be if they could be measured directly on the factors? Excellent question!
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy - This measure varies between 0 and 1, and values closer to 1 are better. A value of .6 is a suggested minimum. It answers the question: Is there enough data relative to the number of variables.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity - This tests the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix. An identity matrix is a matrix in which all of the diagonal elements are 1 and all off diagonal elements are 0. Ostensibly, you want to reject this null hypothesis. This, of course, is psychobabble.Taken together, these two tests provide a minimum standard which should be passed before a factor analysis (or a principal components analysis) should be conducted.
should be> .6
should be< .05
Before you can even start to answer these questions using FA
What is a Common Factor?
It is an abstraction, a “hypothetical construct” that relates to at least two of our measurement variables into a factorIn FA, psychometricians / statisticians try to estimate the common factors that contribute to the variance in a set of variables.Is this an act of logical conclusion, a creation, or a figment of a psychometrician’s imagination ? Depends on who you ask
What is a Unique Factor?
It is a factor that contributes to the variance in only one variable.There is one unique factor for each variable.The unique factors are unrelated to one another and unrelated to the common factors.We want to exclude these unique factors from our solution.
Seems reasonable … right?
11
Assumptions
Factor analysis needs large samples and it is one of the only draw backs
• The more reliable the correlations are the smaller the number of subjects needed
• Need enough subjects for stable estimates -- How many is enough
12
Assumptions
Take home hint:• 50 very poor, 100 poor, 200 fair, 300 good, 500 very good and 1000+ excellent
• Shoot for minimum of 300 usually
• More highly correlated markers fewer subjects
Assumptions
No outliers – obvious influence on correlations would bias resultsMulticollinearity
In PCA it is not problem; no inversionsIn FA, if det(R) or any eigenvalue approaches 0 -> multicollinearity is likely
The above Assumptions at Work:
Note that the metric for all these variables is the same
(since they employed a rating scale). So do we do we run the
FA as correlation or covariance
matrices / does it matter?
Sample Data Set From Chapter 13 (p. 617)Tabacknick and Fidell
Large correlation between Cost and Lift and another between Depth and Powder
Looks like two possible factors – why?
Equations – Extractions - Components
L=V’RV => L = V’ R V EigenValueMatrix = TransposeEigenVectorMatrix * CorMat * EigenVecMat We are reducing to a few factors which duplicate the matrix? Does this seem reasonable?
Are you sure about this?
In a two-by-two matrix we derive eigenvalues
with two eigenvectors each containing two elements
In a four-by-four matrix we derive eigenvalues
with eigenvectors each containing four elements
Equations – Extraction - Obtaining components
L=V’RV It is important to know how L is constructed
Where L is the eigenvalue matrix and V is the eigenvector matrix.This diagonalized the R matrix and reorganized the variance into eigenvaluesA 4 x 4 matrix can be summarized by 4 numbers instead of 16.
With a two-by-two matrix we derive eigenvalues
with two eigenvectors each containing two elements
Here we see that Factor 1 is mostly Depth and Powder (Snow Condition Factor)Factor 2 is mostly Cost and Lift, which is a Resort FactorBoth factors have complex loadings
This is a variation on your homework. Just use your own numbers and replicate the process.
(we may use this hypothetical data as part of a study)
Using SPSS 12, SPSS 20 and psyNet.SOM
Here is an easier way than doing it by hand:
Arrange data in Excel Format as below: SPSS 20
Select Data Reduction: SPSS 12
Select Data Reduction: SPSS 20
Select Variables Descriptives: SPSS 12
Select Variables and Descriptives: SPSS 20
Start with a basic run using Principal Components: SPSS 12
Eigenvalues over 1
Fixed number of factors
Start with a basic run using Principal Components: SPSS 12
Select Varimax: SPSS 12
Select Varimax: SPSS 20
Under Options, select exclude cases likewise and sort by size: SPSS 12
Under Options, select exclude cases likewise and sort by size: SPSS 20
Under Scores, select “save variables” and “display matrix”: SPSS 20
Watch what pops out of your ovenA real time saver
Matching psyNet PCA correlation matrix with SPSS FA
This part is the same but the rest of PCA goes in an entirely different direction
Remember these guys?
An MSA of .9 is marvelous, .4 is not too impressive – Hey it was a small sampleNormally, variables with small MSAs should be deleted
Kaiser's measure of sampling adequacy: Values of .6 and above are required for a good FA.
Looks like two factors can be isolated/extracted
which ones? and what shall we call them?
Here they are again // they have eigenvalues > 1
We are reducing to a few factors which duplicate the matrix?
Fairly Close
Rotations – Nice hints here
SPSS will provide an Orthogonal Rotationwithout your help – look at the iterations
Extraction, Rotation, and Meaning of Factors
Orthogonal Rotation [assume no correlation among the factors]
Loading Matrix – correlation between each variable and the factor
Oblique Rotation [assumes possible correlations among the factors]
Factor Correlation Matrix – correlation between the factorsStructure Matrix – correlation between factors and variables
Oblique Rotations – Fun but not today
Factor extraction is usually followed by rotation in order to maximize large correlation and minimize small correlationsRotation usually increases simple structure and interpretability.The most commonly used is the Varimax variance maximizing procedure which maximizes factor loading variance
Rotating your axis “orthogonally” ~ sounds painfully chiropractic
Where are your components located on
these graphs?
What are theupperand
lower limitson each of
theseaxes?
Cost and Liftmay be a
factor,but they are
polar opposites
Factor weight matrix [B] is found by dividing the loading matrix [A] by the correlation matrix [R-1].
See matrix output 1B R A
Abbreviated Equations
Factors scores [F] are found by multiplying the standardized scores [Z] for each individual by the factor weight matrix [B]and adding them up.
F ZB
Abbreviated Equations
'Z FA
The specific goals of PCA or FA are to summarize patterns of correlations among observed
variables, to reduce a large number of observed variables to a smaller number of factors,
to provide an operational definition (a regression equation) for an underlying process
by using observed vari ables to test a theory about the nature of
underlying processes.
You can also estimate what each subject would score on the “standardized variables.”
This is a revealing procedure—often overlooked.
Standardized variables as factors
1.1447 0.96637 -0.41852 -1.11855 -0.574
1 2 3 4 5Cost 32 61 59 36 62Lift 64 37 40 62 46
Depth 65 62 45 34 43Powder 67 65 43 35 40
Predictions based on Factor analysis: Standard-Scores
1.18534 -0.90355 - 0.70694 0.98342 -0.55827
1 2 3 4 5Cost 32 61 59 36 62Lift 64 37 40 62 46
Depth 65 62 45 34 43Powder 67 65 43 35 40
Predictions based on Factor analysis: Standard-Scores
Interesting stuff… what about cost?
0.39393 -0.59481 - 0.73794 -0.64991 1.58873
Predictions based on Factor analysis: Standard-Scores