A comparison of four methods of constructing factor scores

Four least-squares methods for constructing factor scores have been described in the literature. The formal properties of these scores are developed, and they are compared in terms of four generally desirable properties of constructed factor scores. In particular, it is shown that two of the methods yield scores that are conditionally unbiassed, and univocal in the sense of Guilford and Michael, though not orthogonal, while one of the other methods yields orthogonal scores.It is shown that constructed factor scores cannot be simultaneously univocal and orthogonal, unless we choose the special basis in factor space given by Canonical Factor Analysis.The general problem of choosing between the methods is discussed, on the basis of the theoretical relations obtained.EDITOR'S NOTE: The reader will quickly discover that this article develops several of the generalizations given in the second part of the preceding article, On Factors and Factor Scores. Independent development of the same generalizations is, of course, not a new phenomenon. Because the Presidential Address automatically is accepted for publication and given space in the December issue, it was decided that the only fair thing to do was to print this article in the same issue.     

Numerical methods for polynomial models in nonlinear factor analysis

The basic concepts of nonlinear factor analysis are introduced and some extensions of the general theory are developed. An elementary account of the class of multiple-factor polynomial models is presented, using more elementary algebraic methods than have been employed in earlier accounts of this theory. Working formulas are developed for the multiple-factor polynomial model without product terms.Some empirical results are presented.This work was carried out while the author was a Visiting Research Fellow at the Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N. J. It made use of computer facilities at Princeton University that are supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant NSF-Gp579.     

Error-detection and correction latencies as a function of S-R compatibility

In choice-response tasks employing correction-procedure, error-correcting responses are typically found to be faster than equivalent correct responses. An experiment was made to compare error-correction RT under conditions of good and poor S-R compatibility in a two-choice task. After practice, variations in S-R compatibility producing significant variations in mean correct RT nevertheless have no effect on error-correction time. The contrast between this result, and one previously reported (Burns, 1965) leads to a re-discussion of the processes of error detection and correction.