Factor Analysis of the General Health Questionnaire

1994 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 979-983 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Epstein ◽  
Carol S. Fullerton ◽  
Robert J. Ursano

We present the factor structure of the General Health Questionnaire-60 as derived from a population of 2115 Army soldiers. An eight-factor principal components analysis provided the most clinically relevant solution and explained 58.0% of the variance. We distinguished two types of depressive symptomatology, suggesting the questionnaire may be useful in differentiating shame-ridden dysphoria from anergic disinterest.

1986 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clive Layton ◽  
John Rust

Male school children (N 241), all aged 16 years, and 144 men facing redundancy completed the 60 item version of the General Health Questionnaire. Data from the two groups was analysed separately using unrotated first principal components analysis followed by oblique rotation. The unrotated first principal component accounted for 23% of the variance in the school group, and 13.2% in the group facing redundancy. No subsequent component accounted for more than 6.1% of the variance. For both samples the first five components were subjected to an oblique rotation. Results were discussed in relation to previous findings of the GHQ. The factor structure was found to be unstable across groups. The implications of these findings were considered in the context of proposed subscales of the GHQ.


2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Salehi

To investigate the construct validly of a section of a high stakes test, an exploratory factor analysis using principal components analysis was employed. The rotation used was varimax with the suppression level of .30. Eleven factors were extracted out of 35 reading comprehension items. The fact that these factors emerged speak to the construct validity of the test. However the problem of over-factoring was obvious. This may be attributable to different paradigms of testing on which the items were based. In other words, the test constructer opted for passages from TOEFL, FCE and IELTS books with much alteration.


1977 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 599-601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. C. Stewart

To investigate further the basic item-factor structure of the Junior Eysenck Personality Inventory, a principal components analysis and varimax rotation were conducted on responses of 866 children (aged 7 to 16 yr.) from schools in the Rotorua area of New Zealand. Ten factors were extracted of which 7 were interpretable. These were named: Factor 1. Neuroticism I (Neurotic affect), Factor 2. Extraversion I (Impulsivity), Factor 3. Lie Scale, Factor 4. Extraversion II (Introversion), Factor 5. Extraversion III (Jocularity), Factor 6. Extraversion IV (Sociability), Factor 8. Neuroticism II (Neurotic ideation).


2007 ◽  
Vol 100 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sook-Jeong Lee

The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Specific Interpersonal Trust scale of Johnson-George and Swap in Korean samples as a part of the process of providing an exemplary tool for intercultural studies of trust. A translated version of the original scale was administered to 337 university students (157 males, 180 females) in Seoul, Korea. Data were subjected to a principal components analysis and a confirmatory factor analysis. In principal components analysis for the Korean sample ( n = 167), three factors were identified and labeled: Overall Trust (Cronbach α=.89), Emotional Trust (Cronbach α = .88), and Reliableness (Cronbach α=.84). A confirmatory factor analysis ( n=170) showed that the three-factor model was valid for the sample (χ2/ df= 1.78, RMR=.06, RMSEA = .07, TLI=.92, CFI=.93). Internal consistency reliability and factorial validity were satisfactory in the case of the Korean sample. The Korean version of the Specific Interpersonal Trust Scale made good use of three factors of trust and appeared to be valid without sex differences, while the original scale distinguished the Males subscale from the Females subscale. Implications and limitations of this study were discussed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (37) ◽  
pp. 4188-4219
Author(s):  
Peter D. Wentzell ◽  
Cannon Giglio ◽  
Mohsen Kompany-Zareh

Principal components analysis (PCA) is widely used in analytical chemistry, but is only one type of broader range of factor analysis tools that are described in this article.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document