You are on page 1of 50

Factor Analysis

Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, PhD


Georgiana Onicescu, ScM
Cancer Prevention and Control Statistics Tutorial
July 9, 2009

Motivating Example: Cohesion in Dragon Boat


paddler cancer survivors

Dragon boat paddling is an ancient Chinese sport that offers a unique


blend of factors that could potentially enhance the quality of the lives of
cancer survivor participants.
Evaluating the efficacy of dragon boating to improve the overall quality of life
among cancer survivors has the potential to advance our understanding of
factors that influence quality-of-life among cancer survivors.
We hypothesize that physical activity conducted within the context of the
social support of a dragon boat team contributes significantly to improved
overall quality of life above and beyond a standard physical activity program
because the collective experience of dragon boating is likely enhanced by
team sport factors such as cohesion, teamwork, and the goal of competition.
Methods: 134 cancer survivors self-selected to an 8-week dragon boat
paddling intervention group or to an organized walking program. Each study
arm was comprised of a series of 3 groups of approximately 20-25
participants, with pre- and post-testing to compare quality of life and
physical performance outcomes between study arms.

Motivating Example: Cohesion


We have a concept of what cohesion is, but we
cant measure it directly.
Merriam-Webster:
the act or state of sticking together tightly
the quality or state of being made one

How do we measure it?


We cannot simply say how cohesive is your
team? or on a scale from 1-10, how do you
rate your team cohesion?
We think it combines several elements of unity
and team spirit and perhaps other factors

Factor Analysis
Data reduction tool
Removes redundancy or duplication from a set of
correlated variables
Represents correlated variables with a smaller set of
derived variables.
Factors are formed that are relatively independent of one
another.
Two types of variables:
latent variables: factors
observed variables

Cohesion Variables:

G1 (I do not enjoy being a part of the social environment of this exercise group)
G2 (I am not going to miss the members of this exercise group when the program
ends)
G3 (I am unhappy with my exercise groups level of desire to exceed)
G4 (This exercise program does not give me enough opportunities to improve my
personal performance)
G5 (For me, this exercise group has become one of the most important social
groups to which I belong)
G6 (Our exercise group is united in trying to reach its goals for performance)
G7 (We all take responsibility for the performance by our exercise group)
G8 (I would like to continue interacting with some of the members of this exercise
group after the program ends)
G9 (If members of our exercise group have problems in practice, everyone wants
to help them)
G10 (Members of our exercise group do not freely discuss each athletes
responsibilities during practice)
G11 (I feel like I work harder during practice than other members of this exercise
group)

Other examples

Diet
Air pollution
Personality
Customer satisfaction
Depression
Quality of Life

Some Applications of Factor Analysis


1. Identification of Underlying Factors:
clusters variables into homogeneous sets
creates new variables (i.e. factors)
allows us to gain insight to categories

2. Screening of Variables:
identifies groupings to allow us to select one variable to
represent many
useful in regression (recall collinearity)

3. Summary:
Allows us to describe many variables using a few factors

4. Clustering of objects:
Helps us to put objects (people) into categories depending on
their factor scores

Perhaps the most widely used (and misused) multivariate


[technique] is factor analysis. Few statisticians are neutral about
this technique. Proponents feel that factor analysis is the
greatest invention since the double bed, while its detractors feel
it is a useless procedure that can be used to support nearly any
desired interpretation of the data. The truth, as is usually the case,
lies somewhere in between. Used properly, factor analysis can
yield much useful information; when applied blindly, without
regard for its limitations, it is about as useful and informative as
Tarot cards. In particular, factor analysis can be used to explore
the data for patterns, confirm our hypotheses, or reduce the
Many variables to a more manageable number.
-- Norman Streiner, PDQ Statistics

Lets work backwards


One of the primary goals of factor analysis is
often to identify a measurement model for a
latent variable
This includes
identifying the items to include in the model
identifying how many factors there are in the latent
variable
identifying which items are associated with which
factors

Standard Result
-----------------------------------Variable | Factor1
Factor2 |
-------------+--------------------+
notenjoy | -0.3118
0.5870 |
notmiss | -0.3498
0.6155 |
desireexceed | -0.1919
0.8381 |
personalpe~m | -0.2269
0.7345 |
importants~l |
0.5682
-0.1748 |
groupunited |
0.8184
-0.1212 |
responsibi~y |
0.9233
-0.1968 |
interact |
0.6238
-0.2227 |
problemshelp |
0.8817
-0.2060 |
notdiscuss | -0.0308
0.4165 |
workharder | -0.1872
0.5647 |
-----------------------------------

How to interpret?

Loadings: represent correlations


between item and factor
High loadings: define a factor
Low loadings: item does not load on
factor
Easy to skim the loadings
This example:

factor 1 is defined by G5, G6,


G7, G8 G9
factor 2 is defined by G1, G2,
G3, G4, G10, G11

Other things to note:

factors are independent (usually)


we need to name factors
important to check their face validity.
These factors can now be calculated
using this model
Each person is assigned a factor score for
each factor
Range between -1 to 1

-----------------------------------Variable | Factor1
Factor2 |
-------------+--------------------+
notenjoy | -0.3118
0.5870 |
notmiss | -0.3498
0.6155 |
desireexceed | -0.1919
0.8381 |
personalpe~m | -0.2269
0.7345 |
importants~l |
0.5682
-0.1748 |
groupunited |
0.8184
-0.1212 |
responsibi~y |
0.9233
-0.1968 |
interact |
0.6238
-0.2227 |
problemshelp |
0.8817
-0.2060 |
notdiscuss | -0.0308
0.4165 |
workharder | -0.1872
0.5647 |
-----------------------------------

High loadings are highlighted


in yellow.

How to interpret?
Authors may conclude
something like:
We were able to derive two
factors from the 11 items. The
first factor is defined as
teamwork. The second factor
is defined as personal
competitive nature . These
two factors describe 72% of the
variance among the items.

-----------------------------------Variable | Factor1
Factor2 |
-------------+--------------------+
notenjoy | -0.3118
0.5870 |
notmiss | -0.3498
0.6155 |
desireexceed | -0.1919
0.8381 |
personalpe~m | -0.2269
0.7345 |
importants~l |
0.5682
-0.1748 |
groupunited |
0.8184
-0.1212 |
responsibi~y |
0.9233
-0.1968 |
interact |
0.6238
-0.2227 |
problemshelp |
0.8817
-0.2060 |
notdiscuss | -0.0308
0.4165 |
workharder | -0.1872
0.5647 |
-----------------------------------

High loadings are highlighted


in yellow.

Where did the results come from?


Based on the basic Classical Test Theory Idea:
For a case with just one factor:
Ideal:

X1 = F + e1
X2 = F + e2

var(ej) = var(ek) , j k

Xm = F + em

Reality:

X1 = 1F + e1
X2 = 2F + e2

var(ej) var(ek) , j k

Xm = mF + em
(unequal sensitivity to change in factor)
(Related to Item Response Theory (IRT))

Multi-Factor Models
Two factor orthogonal model
ORTHOGONAL = INDEPENDENT
Example: cohesion has two domains
X1 = 11F1 + 12F2 + e1
X2 = 21F1 + 22F2 + e2
.

X11 = 111F1 + 112F2 + e11

More generally, m factors, n observed variables


X1 = 11F1 + 12F2 ++ 1mFm + e1
X2 = 21F1 + 22F2 ++ 2mFm + e2
.

Xn = n1F1 + n2F2 ++ nmFm + en

Loadings (estimated) in our example


11

21
31

41

51

61

71

81

91
101

111

12 0.31
22 0.35
32 0.19

42 0.23
52 0.57

62 0.82
72 0.92

82 0.62
92 0.88

102 0.03

112 0.19

0.59
0.62
0.84

0.73
0.17

0.12
0.20

0.22
0.21

0.42

0.56

The factor analysis process


Multiple steps
Stepwise optimal
many choices to be made!
a choice at one step may impact the remaining
decisions
considerable subjectivity

Data exploration is key


Strong theoretical model is critical

Steps in Exploratory Factor Analysis


(1) Collect and explore data: choose relevant variables.
(2) Determine the number of factors
(3) Estimate the model using predefined number of factors
(4) Rotate and interpret
(5) (a) Decide if changes need to be made (e.g. drop
item(s), include item(s))
(b) repeat (3)-(4)
(6) Construct scales and use in further analysis

Data Exploration
Histograms
normality
discreteness
outliers

Covariance and correlations between variables


very high or low correlations?

Same scale
high = good, low = bad?

NotDiscussPOST

70

WorkHarderPOST

ProblemsHelpPOST

0 30

GroupUnitedPOST
Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

20 40

InteractPOST

30 60

ResponsibilityPOST

DesireExceedPOST

Frequency

Frequency

30 60

ImportantSocialPOST

Frequency
1

PersonalPerformPOST

0 20

Frequency

40 80

NotMissPOST

Frequency

NotEnjoyPOST

0 40

Frequency
1

30

30 60

0 30

Frequency

100
0 40

Frequency

Data exploration

Correlation Matrix
. pwcorr notenjoy-workharder
| notenjoy notmiss desire~d person~m import~l groupu~d respon~y
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------------notenjoy |
1.0000
notmiss |
0.3705
1.0000
desireexceed |
0.2609
0.3987
1.0000
personalpe~m |
0.2552
0.3472
0.5946
1.0000
importants~l | -0.2514 -0.3357 -0.1384 -0.3123
1.0000
groupunited | -0.1732 -0.2460 -0.2384 -0.1359
0.4364
1.0000
responsibi~y | -0.2554 -0.3663 -0.2908 -0.2507
0.4399
0.8016
1.0000
interact | -0.1847 -0.2966 -0.2162 -0.2294
0.4415
0.4251
0.5174
problemshelp | -0.2561 -0.2865 -0.2567 -0.1940
0.4159
0.6498
0.7748
notdiscuss |
0.1610
0.0763
0.2253
0.2193 -0.0242
0.0027 -0.0598
workharder |
0.3482
0.1606
0.3794
0.3848 -0.0010 -0.2765 -0.3083
| interact proble~p notdis~s workha~r
-------------+-----------------------------------interact |
1.0000
problemshelp |
0.5446
1.0000
notdiscuss | -0.0346 -0.0699
1.0000
workharder | -0.1063 -0.2358
0.2660
1.0000

jitter(data[, 184 + i])

jitter(data[, 184 + i])

5
3
1

5
3

jitter(data[, 184 + j])

jitter(data[, 184 + i])

5
3
1

5
3
1

5
3

jitter(data[, 184 + i])

1
1

5
3

jitter(data[, 184 + i])

jitter(data[, 184 + i])

3
1

5
3
5

jitter(data[, 184 + i])

jitter(data[, 184 + j])

5
3

jitter(data[, 184 + i])

jitter(data[, 184 + j])

3
1

jitter(data[, 184 + i])

jitter(data[, 184 + j])

5
3

jitter(data[, 184 + i])

jitter(data[, 184 + j])

jitter(data[, 184 + i])

1
1

jitter(data[, 184 + j])

jitter(data[, 184 + i])

jitter(data[, 184 + i])

jitter(data[, 184 + j])

5
3
1

jitter(data[, 184 + i])

jitter(data[, 184 + j])

jitter(data[, 184 + i])

5
3
1
1

jitter(data[, 184 + j])

jitter(data[, 184 + j])

jitter(data[, 184 + j])

jitter(data[, 184 + j])

jitter(data[, 184 + j])

jitter(data[, 184 + j])

5
3
1

jitter(data[, 184 + j])

Valid correlations?

Data Matrix
Factor analysis is totally dependent on correlations
between variables.
Factor analysis summarizes correlation structure
v1...vk

v1...vk
O1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
On

Data Matrix

F1..Fj
v1
.
.
.
vk

v1
.
.
.
vk

Correlation
Matrix

Factor
Matrix

Implications for assumptions about Xs?

Important implications
Correlation matrix must be valid measure of
association
Likert scale? i.e. on a scale of 1 to K?
Consider previous set of plots
Is Pearson (linear) correlation a reasonable
measure of association?

Correlation for categorical items


Odds ratios? Nope. on the wrong scale.
Need measures on scale of -1 to 1, with zero meaning
no association
Solutions:
tetrachoric correlation: for binary items
polychoric correlation: for ordinal items

-choric corelations
assume that variables are truncated versions of continuous
variables
only appropriate if continuous underlying assumption makes
sense

Not available in many software packages for factor


analysis!

Polychoric Correlation Matrix


Polychoric correlation matrix
notenjoy
notmiss
desireexceed
personalperform
importantsocial
groupunited
responsibility
interact
problemshelp
notdiscuss
workharder

notenjoy
1
.64411349
.44814752
.37687346
-.33466689
-.26640575
-.38218019
-.31300025
-.40864072
.28367782
.49864257

notmiss

desireexceed

1
.60971951
.49572253
-.35262233
-.25987331
-.43174724
-.41147172
-.44688816
.2071563
.26866894

1
.74640077
-.18773414
-.32414348
-.34289848
-.28711931
-.34338549
.33714715
.50117974

importantsocial

groupunited

personalperform
importantsocial
groupunited
responsibility
interact
problemshelp
notdiscuss
workharder

personalperform
1
-.42902852
-.22011768
-.32272048
-.37003374
-.31435615
.28191066
.4766736

1
.47698468
.49187407
.51150655
.51458893
-.07289447
.02547056

1
.85603168
.46469124
.75552992
-.0934676
-.35603256

interact

problemshelp

responsibility
interact
problemshelp
notdiscuss
workharder

responsibility
1
.59252523
.84727982
-.11548039
-.37311526

1
.60910395
-.09653691
-.13316066

1
-.11580359
-.30122735

Polychoric Correlation in Stata


. findit polychoric
. polychoric notenjoy-workharder
. matrix R = r(R)

Choosing Number of Factors


Intuitively: The number of uncorrelated constructs that
are jointly measured by the Xs.
Only useful if number of factors is less than number of
Xs (recall data reduction).
Use principal components to help decide
type of factor analysis
number of factors is equivalent to number of variables
each factor is a weighted combination of the input variables:
F1 = a11X1 + a12X2 + .
Recall: For a factor analysis, generally,
X1 = a11F1 + a12F2 +...

Eigenvalues
To select how many factors to use, consider
eigenvalues from a principal components analysis
Two interpretations:
eigenvalue equivalent number of variables which the factor
represents
eigenvalue amount of variance in the data described by the
factor.

Rules to go by:

number of eigenvalues > 1


scree plot
% variance explained
comprehensibility

Note: sum of eigenvalues is equal to the number of


items

Cohesion Example
. factormat R, pcf n(134)
(obs=134)
Factor analysis/correlation
Method: principal-component factors
Rotation: (unrotated)

Number of obs
=
Retained factors =
Number of params =

134
3
30

-------------------------------------------------------------------------Factor |
Eigenvalue
Difference
Proportion
Cumulative
-------------+-----------------------------------------------------------Factor1 |
4.96356
3.14606
0.4512
0.4512
Factor2 |
1.81751
0.76378
0.1652
0.6165
Factor3 |
1.05373
0.27749
0.0958
0.7123
Factor4 |
0.77624
0.02065
0.0706
0.7828
Factor5 |
0.75559
0.22587
0.0687
0.8515
Factor6 |
0.52972
0.05654
0.0482
0.8997
Factor7 |
0.47318
0.24670
0.0430
0.9427
Factor8 |
0.22647
0.02484
0.0206
0.9633
Factor9 |
0.20163
0.07341
0.0183
0.9816
Factor10 |
0.12822
0.05407
0.0117
0.9933
Factor11 |
0.07415
.
0.0067
1.0000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scree Plot for Cohesion Example


5

Scree plot of eigenvalues after factor

Eigenvalues
2
3

. screeplot

5
Number

10

Choose two factors: Now fit the model


. factormat R, n(134) ipf factor(2)
(obs=134)
Factor analysis/correlation
Method: iterated principal factors
Rotation: (unrotated)

Number of obs
=
Retained factors =
Number of params =

.........
Factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances
------------------------------------------------Variable | Factor1
Factor2 |
Uniqueness
-------------+--------------------+-------------notenjoy | -0.6091
0.2661 |
0.5582
notmiss | -0.6566
0.2648 |
0.4988
desireexceed | -0.6712
0.5373 |
0.2608
personalpe~m | -0.6342
0.4344 |
0.4091
importants~l |
0.5538
0.2162 |
0.6466
groupunited |
0.7164
0.4137 |
0.3156
responsibi~y |
0.8456
0.4197 |
0.1088
interact |
0.6271
0.2132 |
0.5613
problemshelp |
0.8187
0.3866 |
0.1802
notdiscuss | -0.2830
0.3072 |
0.8256
workharder | -0.4977
0.3260 |
0.6461
-------------------------------------------------

134
2
21

Interpretability?
Not interpretable at this stage
In an unrotated solution, the first factor describes most of
variability.
Ideally we want to
spread variability more evenly among factors.
make factors interpretable

To do this we rotate factors:


redefine factors such that loadings on various factors tend to be
very high (-1 or 1) or very low (0)
intuitively, it makes sharper distinctions in the meanings of the
factors
We use factor analysis for rotation NOT principal
components!

Rotation does NOT improve fit!

Rotating Factors (Intuitively)


F2
F2
2

2
1

F1
4

F1

x1
x2
x3
x4

Factor 1

Factor 2

0.5
0.8
-0.7
-0.5

0.5
0.8
0.7
-0.5

x1
x2
x3
x4

Factor 1

Factor 2

0
0
-0.9
0

0.6
0.9
0
-0.9

. rotate
Factor analysis/correlation
Method: iterated principal factors
Rotation: orthogonal varimax (Kaiser off)

Rotated Solution

Number of obs
=
Retained factors =
Number of params =

134
2
21

-------------------------------------------------------------------------Factor |
Variance
Difference
Proportion
Cumulative
-------------+-----------------------------------------------------------Factor1 |
3.35544
0.72180
0.5603
0.5603
Factor2 |
2.63364
.
0.4397
1.0000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(55) = 959.26 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000
Rotated factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances
------------------------------------------------Variable | Factor1
Factor2 |
Uniqueness
-------------+--------------------+-------------notenjoy | -0.3118
0.5870 |
0.5582
notmiss | -0.3498
0.6155 |
0.4988
desireexceed | -0.1919
0.8381 |
0.2608
personalpe~m | -0.2269
0.7345 |
0.4091
importants~l |
0.5682
-0.1748 |
0.6466
groupunited |
0.8184
-0.1212 |
0.3156
responsibi~y |
0.9233
-0.1968 |
0.1088
interact |
0.6238
-0.2227 |
0.5613
problemshelp |
0.8817
-0.2060 |
0.1802
notdiscuss | -0.0308
0.4165 |
0.8256
workharder | -0.1872
0.5647 |
0.6461
-------------------------------------------------

Rotation options
Orthogonal

maintains independence of factors


more commonly seen
usually at least one option
Stata: varimax, quartimax, equamax, parsimax, etc.

Oblique
allows dependence of factors
make distinctions sharper (loadings closer to 0s and
1s
can be harder to interpret once you lose
independence of factors

Uniqueness
Should all items be retained?
Uniquess for each item describes the proportion of the
item described by the factor model
Recall an R-squared:
proportion of variance in Y explained by X

1-Uniqueness:
proportion of the variance in Xk explained by F1, F2, etc.

Uniqueness:
represents what is left over that is not explained by factors
error that remainese

A GOOD item has a LOW uniqueness

Our current model?


Rotated factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances
------------------------------------------------Variable | Factor1
Factor2 |
Uniqueness
-------------+--------------------+-------------notenjoy | -0.3118
0.5870 |
0.5582
notmiss | -0.3498
0.6155 |
0.4988
desireexceed | -0.1919
0.8381 |
0.2608
personalpe~m | -0.2269
0.7345 |
0.4091
importants~l |
0.5682
-0.1748 |
0.6466
groupunited |
0.8184
-0.1212 |
0.3156
responsibi~y |
0.9233
-0.1968 |
0.1088
interact |
0.6238
-0.2227 |
0.5613
problemshelp |
0.8817
-0.2060 |
0.1802
notdiscuss | -0.0308
0.4165 |
0.8256
workharder | -0.1872
0.5647 |
0.6461
-------------------------------------------------

Revised without notdiscuss


Rotated factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances
------------------------------------------------Variable | Factor1
Factor2 |
Uniqueness
-------------+--------------------+-------------notenjoy | -0.3093
0.5811 |
0.5667
notmiss | -0.3345
0.6455 |
0.4715
desireexceed | -0.1783
0.8483 |
0.2486
personalpe~m | -0.2119
0.7551 |
0.3849
importants~l |
0.5618
-0.2057 |
0.6420
groupunited |
0.8265
-0.1271 |
0.3008
responsibi~y |
0.9247
-0.2089 |
0.1012
interact |
0.6160
-0.2469 |
0.5596
problemshelp |
0.8784
-0.2224 |
0.1789
workharder | -0.2023
0.5271 |
0.6813
-------------------------------------------------

Methods for Estimating Model

Principal Components (already discussed)


Principal Factor Method
Iterated Principal Factor / Least Squares
Maximum Likelihood (ML)

Most common(?): ML and Least Squares


Unfortunately, default is often not the best approach!
Caution! ipf and ml may not converge to the right
answer! Look for uniqueness of 0 or 1. Problem of
identifiability or getting stuck.

Interpretation
Naming of Factors
Wrong Interpretation: Factors represent separate
groups of people.
Right Interpretation: Each factor represents a continuum
along which people vary (and dimensions are orthogonal
if orthogonal)

Factor Scores and Scales


Each object (e.g. each cancer survivor) gets a factor score for
each factor.
Old data vs. New data
The factors themselves are variables
An individuals score is weighted combination of scores on input
variables
These weights are NOT the factor loadings!
Loadings and weights determined simultaneously so that there is
no correlation between resulting factors.

Factor Scoring
. predict f1 f2
(regression scoring assumed)
Scoring coefficients
(method = regression; based on varimax rotated factors)
---------------------------------Variable | Factor1
Factor2
-------------+-------------------notenjoy | -0.03322
0.19223
notmiss | 0.04725
0.13279
desireexceed | 0.15817
0.54996
personalpe~m | -0.04037
0.21452
importants~l | 0.02971 -0.02168
groupunited | 0.12273
0.12938
responsibi~y | 0.60379
0.07719
interact | 0.04594 -0.00870
problemshelp | 0.31516
0.06376
workharder | 0.11750
0.10810
----------------------------------

Why different than loadings?


Factors are generally
scaled to have
variance 1.
Mean is arbitrary.
* If based on Pearson correlation
mean will be zero.

Scores for factor 1


3
4
5

Orthgonal (i.e., independent)?

3
4
Scores for factor 2

Teamwork (Factor 1) by Program


2

5
4
3
2

Scores for factor 1

Graphs by progrm

Dragon Boat

Walking

Personal Competitive Nature (Factor 2) by Program


2

Dragon Boat

Walking

4
3
2
1

Scores for factor 2

Graphs by progrm

Criticisms of Factor Analysis


Labels of factors can be arbitrary or lack scientific basis
Derived factors often very obvious
defense: but we get a quantification
Garbage in, garbage out
really a criticism of input variables
factor analysis reorganizes input matrix
Too many steps that could affect results
Too complicated
Correlation matrix is often poor measure of association of input
variables.

Our example?
Preliminary analysis of pilot data!
Concern: negative items hang together, positive items
hang together:
Is separation into two factors:
based on two different factors (teamwork, pers. comp. nature)
based on negative versus positive items?

Recall: the computer will always give you something!


Validity?
boxplots of factor 1 suggest something
additional reliability and validity needs to be considered

Stata Code
pwcorr notenjoy-workharder
polychoric notenjoy-workharder
matrix R = r(R)
factormat R, pcf n(134)
screeplot
factormat R, n(134) ipf factor(2)
rotate

polychoric notenjoy notmiss desire personal important group r


matrix R = r(R)
factormat R, n(134) ipf factor(2)
rotate
predict f1 f2
scatter f1 f2
graph box f1, by(progrm)
graph box f2, by(progrm)

Stata Code for Pearson Correlation


factor notenjoy-workharder, pcf
screeplot
factor notenjoy-workharder, ipf factor(2)
rotate
factor notenjoy notmiss desire personal
important group respon interact problem
workharder, ipf factor(2)
rotate
predict f1 f2
scatter f1 f2
graph box f1, by(progrm)
graph box f2, by(progrm)

Stata Options
Pearson correlation
Use factor for principal components and factor analysis
choose estimation approach: ipf, pcf, ml, pf
choose to retain n factors: factor(n)

Polychoric correlation
Use factormat for principal components and factor analysis
choose estimation approach: ipf, pcf, ml, pf
choose to retain n factors: factor(n)
include n(xxx) to describe the sample size

Scree Plot: screeplot


Rotate: choose rotation type: varimax (default), promax, etc.
Create factor variables
predict: list as many new variable names as there are retained
factors.
Example: for 3 retained factors,
factor teamwork competition hardworks