Factor analysis
Hi,
I have conducted a factor analysis on some questionnaire items. The
dependent variables that I am measuring for example ('Intention To Buy',
'Attitude towards a product' and 'Trust in buying the product from a
merchant' ) seem to load significantly high on two factors which leaves me
with a NOT SIMPLE FACTOR STRUCTURE.
I am assuming that since 'Intention To Buy', 'Attitude towards a product'
and 'Trust in buying the product from a merchant' all seem to be some type
of an ATTITUDE , the significantly high factor loadings on the two factors
may be justifiable.
My questions are:
1. Are my above interpretations of the result correct?
2. If not, is there a statistical method that can help me overcome this
'non-simple factor structure'?
Thanks.
chi sq arbitrary sample size
Happy holidays! I am developing a map of the annual probability of burning (in a wildfire) for a mountainous area. I have a map with cells labeled according to a.) one of five vegetation types and b) housing density and c) the year(s) when wildfire occurred in the cell. I want to find out if there are differences in the likelihood of fire depending vegetation and housing density. I've constructed a 2X5 contingency table for vegetation type (burn/no burn, veg type 1, type 2... type 5) and ran a chi square using the number of acres in each cell as N. I am concerned that this is a large and arbitrary sample - in that I could have used meters or inches, thus changing the rather large chi square value. Do you agree that chi square tests are not an option, and could you recommend an alternative (some sort of test of equality of proportions)?
Re: teaching statistical methods by rules?
Jerry Dallal wrote: Robert Frick wrote: I know it is hard to make statistics fun, but FOLLOWING RULES IS NEVER FUN. Not in math, not in games, nowhere. In math and in games, following rules isn't just fun, IT'S THE LAW. In fact, you can't have fun unless you follow them. :-) Well, technically, most real rules tell you what not to do -- they usually don't tell you what to do, because that isn't fun. In bridge, the language of the bidding is very prescribed, but you almost always have choices as to what you can bid. On the other hand, the prescription to bid 1NT with a balanced hand and 15-17 points tells you what to do, but is not a real rule of the game. Instead, it is a rule the experts constructed so that the game wouldn't be fun. Ha ha, they really constructed the rule so that people could play better bridge. Destroying the game is an unintended byproduct. In math, aren't students often taught algorithms for solving problems? Again, no fun. Bob F.
