Standardized versus Unstandardized Factor Analysis in a Study of “Organizational Climate”

Abstract

In this article, new arguments and empirical evidence are presented justifying the use of standardized R-analysis (or equivalently Q–technique) in certain types of factor-analytic studies. The standardized R–analysis analyses the intercorrelations among respondents based on their “ipsative” scores, as opposed to the unstandardized R–analysis (or equivalently R–technique)which analyses the intercorrelations among variables based on “normative” scores. Broverman (1) contended the commonly accepted view that since “ipsative” standardization results in some loss of information, unstandardized R–technique should be preferred over the standardized R–analysis and presented empirical arguments to support his view that the factors extracted by the two techniques are different in character. Our results and conclusions are generally supportive of Broverman’s view. The empirical evidence presented and discussed in this article taken from the study “Organizational Climate of Schools” by the author in which both techniques were employed.