Stephen Brand
www.statisticsdoc.com
Mark,
This is quite odd. I have know of instances in which the saved factor scores from an orthgonal rotation were weakly correlated (because the factor scores are estimated), but the correlations that you report is very large.
How did you obtain this correlation matrix? Did you calculate and save factors scores? If so, check the syntax for the calculation. If not, could you post or send me the syntax that you utilized in this analysis?
HTH,
Steve
---- Mark Webb <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> I've used .....
> Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
> Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
>
> to extract 16 factors [1 Eiganvalue approach used].
> In theory these factors should be uncorrelated. When I do Pearson Correlation I get the following.
> There seems to be correlation [e.g. 0.78] - why is this ?
>
> Fac1
> Factors Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
> Fac1 1.00 547.00
> Fac2 0.78 0.00 547
> Fac3 0.52 0.00 547
> Fac4 0.63 0.00 547
> Fac5 0.51 0.00 547
> Fac6 0.37 0.00 547
> Fac7 0.48 0.00 547
> Fac8 0.46 0.00 547
> Fac9 0.63 0.00 547
> Fac10 0.43 0.00 547
> Fac11 0.60 0.00 547
> Fac12 0.61 0.00 547
> Fac13 0.61 0.00 547
> Fac14 0.58 0.00 547
> Fac15 -0.16 0.00 547
> Fac16 0.29 0.00 547
--
For personalized and experienced consulting in statistics and research design, visit www.statisticsdoc.com
Locked
