Graduate Why does Polychoric Reduce to two Factors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WWGD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Factors
Click For Summary
Polychoric analysis is used to find the correlation coefficient between underlying continuous latent variables derived from ordered non-continuous variables. The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the implication of having only two underlying latent variables during this analysis. It clarifies that the correlation matrix generated from polychoric correlations can lead to a standard Pearson correlation matrix, which allows for factor analysis. The number of factors extracted depends on eigenvalues and loadings, and there is no strict requirement to have only two factors. Understanding this process is crucial for correctly interpreting the results of polychoric analysis.
WWGD
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,772
Reaction score
13,008
Hi All,
Say we have our ordered non-continuous variables to perform Polychoric Analysis ( finding the
Polychoric correlation coefficient)
According to the theory, we will find this way, the standard Person correlation coefficient
between the underlying continuous latent variables ( Non-continuous ordered variables are
observations of these continuous latent variables; e.g., symptoms of depression, anxiety, etc.).
There is a result whereby there are just two underlying latent variables. I am just not clear
on what this means that there are just two underlying latent variables; before of, or while performing
the Polychoric analysis, we get a correlation matrix. From the correlation matrix we can do standard Factor
Analysis. But, what does it mean we just get two factors? Do we mean the correlation matrix will just have
two eigenvalues larger than 1? Or will all variables load along just two main factors?
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not understanding. I think it sounds like a binomial distribution, and I reserve the right to be wrong here. So correct me please. It seems binary to me.

If what I said is correct (from wikpedia)-
SAS/STAT® software can perform a factor analysis on binary and ordinal data. To fit a common factor model, there are two approaches (both known as Latent Trait models): The first approach is to create a matrix of tetrachoric correlations (for binary variables) or polychoric correlations (for ordinal variables).
https://it.unt.edu/sites/default/files/binaryfa_l_jds_sep2014.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD
jim mcnamara said:
I'm not understanding. I think it sounds like a binomial distribution, and I reserve the right to be wrong here. So correct me please. It seems binary to me.

If what I said is correct (from wikpedia)-

https://it.unt.edu/sites/default/files/binaryfa_l_jds_sep2014.pdf
My apologies Jim, I was mistaken about this, I have been told by people more knowledgeable on the topic of Polychorics. EDIT: I mean, as you said, the matrix is defined on ordinal ( basically any non-continuous variable that is not categorical) variables, it will produce a standard Pearson correlation matrix ## C_{ij}## where ## c_{ij}## is the correlation between continuous underlying variables i and j. Once we have a Pearson correlation matrix, we can do standard Factor Analysis and then we may get any number of (latent, continuous ) factors ( we will have Real eigenvalues since the correlation matrix is symmetric: ## c_{ij}=c_{ji} ## ) and then we may choose on how many we select , depending on the loadings and/or whether the eigenvalues are greater than 1 ( in abs. value ). But I misunderstood that there had to be two. Thanks for the answer.
 
Last edited:
If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K