Exploratory Factor Analysis
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Exploratory Factor Analysis
EXPLANATORY
FACTOR ANALYSIS
Tutku Sekin elik
Yusuf
Research Question
HBAT company
Newsprint
Magazine
Are there any differences in customer perceptions
dimensions of perceptions
What is EFA?
An interdependence technique
HBAT Data
13 attributes about perceptions of HBAT were developed
Evaluation of Data
No missing data
Some outliers, no variable has a standard deviation more
Evaluation of Data
Also multivariate detection of outliers: Mahalanobis D2
We employ regression then we calculate the z scores for
Assumptions
Normality, homoscedasticity, and linearity
Normality, necessary for statistics
Table 2: Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Statistic
df
Shapiro-Wilk
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
X6 - Product Quality
.095
200
.000
.950
200
.000
X7 - E-Commerce
.122
200
.000
.962
200
.000
X8 - Technical Support
.046
200
.200
.989
200
.114
X9 - Complaint Resolution
.045
200
.200*
.996
200
.844
X10 - Advertising
.078
200
.005
.984
200
.021
.063
200
.049
.984
200
.025
.107
200
.000
.981
200
.007
.091
200
.000
.971
200
.000
.058
200
.093
.996
200
.824
.036
200
.200*
.996
200
.912
.105
200
.000
.984
200
.022
.095
200
.000
.968
200
.000
.086
200
.001
.984
200
.026
Assumptions
Histograms
Assumptions
Log, 1/x, Square root, x2, x3 did not help to normalize the
Assumptions - Homogeneity
. According to Levene statistics, only X13 Competitive
df1
df2
Sig.
X7 - E-Commerce
,533
198
,466
X8 - Technical Support
,018
198
,892
X9 - Complaint Resolution
,002
198
,963
X10 - Advertising
,775
198
,380
1,228
198
,269
,080
198
,777
5,116
198
,025
2,403
198
,123
,917
198
,339
,451
198
,503
2,717
198
,101
,006
198
,939
Assumptions - Linearity
Objectives of EFA
Specify the unit of analysis
What is being grouped?
Cases or respondents (Q type)
Variables (R type)
Achieving data summarization vs. data reduction
Data summarization: identifying underlying dimensions
Data reduction: using factor loadings as the basis for subsequent
analysis
Variable selection
Consider the conceptual underpinnings and intuition as to the
appropriateness of variables
Comprehensive & parsimonious
EFA
An R type EFA was employed
Aim is data reduction
We looked at the correlation matrix of variables
Sample size is 200, which is more than the required
number 100.
There are more observations then variables, as
suggested.
Number of observations per variable is approximately
15:1, which is more than the desired limit of 5:1
Statistical issues
Overall measures of intercorrelation
Correlations btw variables 0.30
Small partial correlations (unexplained correlation when the effects of
other variables are taken into account)
Anti-image correlation matrix (correlations 0.70)
Bartlett test of sphericity (significance < 0.05)
Measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) (MSA values > 0.50)
Variable-specific measures of intercorrelation
MSA for each variable (MSA values > 0.50)
Approx. Chi-Square
df
Sig.
,648
1875,571
78
,000
Correlation Matrix
Hair et al. suggests that correlations lower than 0.30 may show that factor analysis is
inappropriate. Of the 91 correlations between variables, 20 of them had correlation
values higher than 0.30.
X6-ProductQuality
X6-
Product
Quality
X7-ECommerce
X8-
X9-
X10-
Technical Complaint
Advertising
Support
Resolution
tr_x11-
X12-
X13-
X14-
X15-
transformed Salesforce Competitive Warranty
New
productline
Image
Pricing
&Claims Products
X16-
Order
&
Billing
X17-
Price
Flexibility
X18-
Delivery
Speed
X7-E-Commerce
-0,034
X8-TechnicalSupport
0,087
0,041
X9-Complaint
Resolution
0,09
,192**
,152*
X10-Advertising
-0,054
,505**
0,028
,234**
tr_x11-transformed
productline
,491**
0,069
,166*
,576**
,145*
X12-SalesforceImage
-0,116
,788**
0,086
,256**
,627**
0,056
X13-Competitive
Pricing
-,448**
,177*
-0,092
-0,077
0,099
-,484**
,200**
X14-Warranty&
Claims
0,109
0,103
,838**
,181*
0,035
,232**
,163*
-0,085
X15-NewProducts
0,136
-0,041
-0,038
0,09
0,063
,144*
0,009
-0,121
0,03
X16-Order&Billing
0,083
,217
0,121
,741
**
,230
,466
,284
-0,06
,204
0,137
X17-PriceFlexibility
-,487
**
,186
-0,029
,418
**
,260
-,309
,272
,470
-0,041
0,047
,419**
X18-DeliverySpeed
0,067
,241**
0,132
,878**
,323**
,629**
,299**
-0,055
,183**
,147*
,773**
,513**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Partial Correlations
Partial correlations should be small, as opposed to
Partial Correlations
X6-ProductQuality
X6-
Product
Quality
X7-ECommerc
e
X8-
Technical
Support
tr_x11-
X9-
X10-
transforme
Complaint Advertisin
dproduct
Resolution
g
line
X12-
Salesforc
eImage
X13-
Competitiv
ePricing
X17-
X14-
X16-
X15-New
Price
Warranty&
Order&
Products
Flexibilit
Claims
Billing
y
,859a
X7-E-Commerce
-0,096
,692a
X8-Technical
Support
-0,024
0,019
,518a
X9-Complaint
Resolution
-0,017
0,055
-0,092
,908a
X10-Advertising
-0,038
-0,022
-0,084
0,099
,746a
tr_x11-transformed
productline
0,026
0,025
0,029
0,013
-0,209
,499a
X12-Salesforce
Image
0,113
-0,676
0,068
-0,071
-0,437
0,141
,655a
X13-Competitive
Pricing
0,118
-0,08
0,071
0,003
0,021
0,072
-0,044
,923a
X14-Warranty&
Claims
0,014
0,012
-0,839
0,078
0,129
-0,049
-0,144
-0,063
,542a
X15-NewProducts
-0,128
0,089
0,114
0,085
-0,025
-0,086
-0,045
0,086
-0,092
,567a
X16-Order&Billing
-0,089
0,008
0,11
-0,208
0,073
-0,012
-0,084
0,071
-0,137
-0,029
,937a
0,228
0,041
-0,012
0,036
-0,208
0,904
0,121
-0,123
0,017
-0,115
-0,069
,442a
-0,088
-0,057
0,002
-0,352
0,095
-0,871
-0,088
0,011
0,001
0,039
-0,13
-0,86
X17-Price
Flexibility
X18-DeliverySpeed
X18-
Delivery
Speed
,586a
Correlations revisited
After deleting X17, KMO and Bartletts Test results
when:
Data reduction is primary concern (minimum number of factor to account
InitialEigenvalues
Componen
t
1
RotationSumsofSquaredLoadings
Total
3,723
% of
Variance
31,024
Cumulative
%
31,024
Total
2,888
% of
Variance
24,066
Cumulative
%
24,066
2,320
19,331
50,355
2,330
19,416
43,482
1,689
14,071
64,427
1,910
15,914
59,396
1,267
10,559
74,986
1,871
15,590
74,986
,946
7,879
82,865
,574
4,787
87,652
,489
4,078
91,730
,342
2,852
94,582
,228
1,902
96,484
10
,187
1,561
98,044
11
,136
1,137
99,182
12
,098
,818
100,000
Scree Plot
If we had employed scree test criterion, then we would have came up more
factors. As you can see from the figure, inflection point was after the sixth factor
QUARTIMAX
VARIMAX
EQUIMAX
Oblique
OBLIMIN
Table11:RotatedComponent
Matrix
Table10:ComponentMatrix
Component
X6
X7
,468
2
-,571
,836
X10
,493
,535
tr_x11
,699
-,499
X12
,535
,689
X6
X7
,867
X9
4
,567
,646
X8
Component
3
,831
,882
X8
X9
,954
,920
X10
tr_x11
X12
,784
,576
,663
,908
Rotation
As you can see unrotated factor solution had lots of cross
Component
Communalities
X18-DeliverySpeed
0,932
,908
X9-ComplaintResolution
0,929
,886
X16-Order&Billing
0,88
,804
X12-SalesforceImage
0,904
,868
X7-E-Commerce
0,884
,793
X10-Advertising
0,78
,642
X8-TechnicalSupport
0,954
,918
X14-Warranty&Claims
0,948
,921
X6-ProductQuality
0,861
,746
X13-CompetitivePricing
-0,827
,714
Factors
Factor 1: Delivery Speed, Complaint Resolution, Order &
Billing (SalesSupport)
Factor 2: Salesforce Image, E-Commerce, Advertising
(Recognition)
Factor 3: Technical Support, Warranty & Claims (After
SalesServices)
Factor 4: Product Quality, Competitive Pricing (Quality&
Price)
,927
X9 - Complaint Resolution
,912
,866
,922
X7 - E-Commerce
,882
X10 - Advertising
,793
,952
X8 - Technical Support
,948
X6 - Product Quality
X13 - Competitive Pricing
,869
-,812
validaitons.