Parallel analysis approach for determining dimensionality in canonical correlation analysis

References

• Timm NH. Applied multivariate analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Fujikoshi Y, Ulyanov VV, Shimizu R. Multivariate statistics: high-dimensional and large-sample approximations. Hoboken: John Wiley Sons, Inc.; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Caliński T, Krzyśko M, W Wołyński. A comparison of some tests for determining the number of nonzero canonical correlations. Comm Statist Simulation Comput. 2006;35:727–749. doi: 10.1080/03610910600716290
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujikoshi Y, Veitch LG. Estimation of dimensionality in canonical correlation analysis. Biometrika. 1979;66:345–351. doi: 10.1093/biomet/66.2.345
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aoki K, Sato Y. A test statistic in canonical correlation analysis for categorical variables. Behaviormetrika. 2007;34(1):59–74. doi: 10.2333/bhmk.34.59
   Google Scholar
• Caliński T, Krzyśko M. A closed testing procedure for canonical correlations. Comm Statist Theory Methods. 2005;34:1105–1116. doi: 10.1081/STA-200056830
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan X. Canonical correlation analysis and structural equation modeling: what do they have in common? Struct Equ Model. 1997;4(1):65–79. doi: 10.1080/10705519709540060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunderson BK, Muirhead RJ. On estimating the dimensionality in canonical correlation analysis. J Multivariate Anal. 1997;62:121–136. doi: 10.1006/jmva.1997.1677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris RJ. The invalidity of partitioned – U tests in canonical correlation and multivariate analysis of variance. Multivariate Behav Res. 1976;11:353–365. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr1103_6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawley DN. Tests of significance in canonical analysis. Biometrika. 1959;28:321–377.
   Google Scholar
• Lee HS. Canonical correlation analysis using small number of samples. Comm Statist Simulation Comput. 2007;36(5):973–985. doi: 10.1080/03610910701539443
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendoza JL, Markos VH, Gonter R. A new perspective on sequential testing procedures in canonical analysis: a Monte Carlo evaluation. Multivariate Behav Res. 1978;13:371–382. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr1303_8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamada T, Sugiyama T. On the permutation test in canonical correlation analysis. Comput Statist Data Anal. 2006;50:2111–2123. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2005.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus R, P Eric, Gabriel KR. On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika. 1976;63:655–660. doi: 10.1093/biomet/63.3.655
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujikoshi Y. Asymptotic expansion of the distributions of the latent roots in MANOVA and the canonical correlations. J Multivariate Anal. 1977;7:386–396. doi: 10.1016/0047-259X(77)90080-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1965;30:179–185. doi: 10.1007/BF02289447
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guttman L. Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1954;19:149–161. doi: 10.1007/BF02289162
   Google Scholar
• Hayton JC, Allen DG, Scarpello V. Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ Res Methods. 2004;7:191–205. doi: 10.1177/1094428104263675
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glorfeld LW. An improvement on Horn's parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educ Psychol Meas. 1995;55:377–393. doi: 10.1177/0013164495055003002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SJ Cho, Li F, Bandalos D. Accuracy of the parallel analysis procedure with polychoric correlations. Educ Psychol Meas. 2009;69:748–759. doi: 10.1177/0013164409332229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green SB, Redell N, Thompson MS, Levy R. Accuracy of revised and traditional parallel analyses for assessing dimensionality with binary data. Educ Psychol Meas. 2016;76:5–21. doi: 10.1177/0013164415581898
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenzo-Seva U, Timmerman ME, HAL Kiers. The hull method for selecting the number of common factors. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46:340–364. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2011.564527
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwick WR, Velicer WF. Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychol Bull. 1986;99:432–442. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buja A, Eyuboglu N. Remarks on parallel analysis. Multivariate Behav Res. 1992;27:509–540. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2704_2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner NE. The effect of common variance and structure pattern on random data eigenvalues: implications for the accuracy of parallel analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 1998;58:541–568. doi: 10.1177/0013164498058004001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LJ Weng, CP Cheng. Parallel analysis with unidimensional binary data. Educ Psychol Meas. 2005;65:697–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164404273941
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford AV, Green SB, Levy R, WJ Lo, Scott L, Svetina D, Thompson MS. Evaluation of parallel analysis methods for determining the number of factors. Educ Psychol Meas. 2010;70:885–901. doi: 10.1177/0013164410379332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphreys LG, Ilgen DR. Note on a criterion for the number of common factors. Educ Psychol Meas. 1969;29:571–578. doi: 10.1177/001316446902900303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timmerman ME, Lorenzo-Seva U. Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychol Methods. 2011;16:209–220. doi: 10.1037/a0023353
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrido LE, Abad FJ, Ponsoda V. A new look at Horn's parallel analysis with ordinal variables. Psychol Methods. 2013;18(4):454–474. doi: 10.1037/a0030005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran US, Formann AK. Performance of parallel analysis in retrieving unidimensionality in the presence of binary data. Educ Psychol Meas. 2009;69:50–61. doi: 10.1177/0013164408318761
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson DA. Stopping rules in principal components analysis: a comparison of heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology. 1993;74:2204–2214. doi: 10.2307/1939574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen R, Warne RT. Estimating confidence intervals for eigenvalues in exploratory factor analysis. Behav Res Methods. 2010;42(3):871–876. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.3.871
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parmet Y, Schechtman E, Sherman M. Factor analysis revisited – how many factors are there? Comm Statist Simulation Comput. 2010;39:1893–1908. doi: 10.1080/03610918.2010.524332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warne RT, Larsen R. Evaluating a proposed modification of the Guttman rule for determining the number of factors in an exploratory factor analysis. Psychol Test Assess Model. 2014;56:104–123.
   Google Scholar
• Zientek LR, Thompson B. Applying the bootstrap to the multivariate case: bootstrap component/factor analysis. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):318–325. doi: 10.3758/BF03193163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinno A. Exploring the sensitivity of Horn's parallel analysis to the distributional form of random data. Multivariate Behav Res. 2009;44(3):362–388. doi: 10.1080/00273170902938969
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 1999;4:272–299. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henson RK, Roberts JK. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66:393–416. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282485
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphreys LG, RG Montanelli Jr. An investigation of the parallel analysis criterion for determining the number of common factors. Multivariate Behav Res. 1975;10:193–205. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr1002_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PR Peres-Neto, DA Jackson, KM Somers. How many principal components? Stopping rules for determining the number of non-trivial axes revisited. Comput Statist Data Anal. 2005;49:974–997. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2004.06.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velicer WF, Eaton CA, Fava JL. Construct explication through factor or component analysis: a review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In Goffin RD, Helmes E, editors. Problems and solutions in human assessment: honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2000. p. 41–71.
   Google Scholar
• Dinno A. Implementing Horn's parallel analysis for principal component analysis and factor analysis. Stata J. 2009b;9:291–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ledesma RD, Valero-Mora P. Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: an easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12(2):1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Liu OL, Rijmen F. A modified procedure for parallel analysis of ordered categorical data. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40(2):556–562. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.2.556
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Connor BP. SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2000;32:396–402. doi: 10.3758/BF03200807
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton: Chapman Hall/CRC; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Rencher A, Christensen WF. Methods of multivariate analysis. 3rd ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Reddon JR, Marceau R, Jackson DN. An application of singular value decomposition to the factor analysis of MMPI items. Appl Psychol Meas. 1982;6:275–283. doi: 10.1177/014662168200600303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar