Neil wrote: > This may sound like a silly question, but for those of you are > familiar with Q-Sort Analysis / Q-Methodology, (a type of Factor > Analysis), does someone know what the "Q" actually stands for? > > I have found many journal articles and websites on this analysis/ > methodology, but have not been able to find the above information in > any of my sources. A definitive reference where this information can > be found will help. > > TIA
I initially thought Neil was talking about "Q-mode factor analysis", as did some other respondents. David Garson describes Q-mode factor analysis as follows (http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/factor.htm): ------------------------------------------------------ Factor Analytic Data Modes * R-mode factor analysis. R-mode is by far the most common, so much so that it is normally assumed and not labeled as such. In R-mode, rows are cases, columns are variables, and cell entries are scores of the cases on the variables. In R-mode, the factors are clusters of variables on a set of people or other entities, at a given point of time. * Q-mode factor analysis, also called inverse factor analysis, is factor analysis which seeks to cluster the cases rather than the variables. That is, in Q-mode the rows are variables and the columns are cases (ex., people), and the cell entries are scores of the cases on the variables. In Q-mode the factors are clusters of people for a set of variables. Q-mode is used to establish the factional composition of a group on a set of issues at a given point in time. The Q-mode has the special problem of negative factor loadings. In conventional factor analysis of variables, a negative loading indicates a negative relation of the variable to the factor. In Q-mode factor analysis, a negative loading does not have a clear meaning. One common approach is to consider all cases with negative loadings as being in a cluster of their own. Some researchers consider Q-mode factor analysis suspect due to negative loadings, the possibility of singularities (columns with the same values), and ranking problems. Most researchers prefer to use a more accepted technique, such as some form of cluster analysis. ------------------------------------------------------ But I don't think this is what Neil was talking about. The following is from David Clark-Carter's book (reference given below), in a section called "Techniques to Measure Meaning" (p. 97): "Q-methodology is an approach to research which was devised by Stephenson (1953). It requires participants or judges to rate statements or other elements on a given dimension or on a given basis. One technique which Q-methodology employs is getting participants to perform Q-sorts. Typically a Q-sort involves participants being presented with a set of statements, each on an individual card, and being asked to place those statements on a dimension, such as /very important to me/ to /not imporant to me/." etc Clark-Carter refers to Kerlinger (1973), and says that "[Carl] Rogers (1951, 1961) has used Q-sorts in the context of counselling." Here's the Clark-Carter book info: Clark-Carter, D. (1997). Doing quantitative psychological research: From design to report. East Hove, Sussex: Psychological Press. Cheers, Bruce -- Bruce Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.angelfire.com/wv/bwhomedir/ . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
