Exploratory factor analysis is a statistical method commonly used in psychological research to investigate latent variables and to develop questionnaires. Although such self-report questionnaires are prone to missing values, there is not much literature on this topic with regard to exploratory factor analysis—and especially the process of factor retention. Determining the correct number of factors is crucial for the analysis, yet little is known about how to deal with missingness in this process. Therefore, in a simulation study, six missing data methods (an expectation–maximization algorithm, predictive mean matching, Bayesian regression, random forest imputation, complete case analysis, and pairwise complete observations) were compared with respect to the accuracy of the parallel analysis chosen as retention criterion. Data were simulated for correlated and uncorrelated factor structures with two, four, or six factors; 12, 24, or 48 variables; 250, 500, or 1,000 observations and three different missing data mechanisms. Two different procedures combining multiply imputed data sets were tested. The results showed that no missing data method was always superior, yet random forest imputation performed best for the majority of conditions—in particular when parallel analysis was applied to the averaged correlation matrix rather than to each imputed data set separately. Complete case analysis and pairwise complete observations were often inferior to multiple imputation.
Using Fit Statistic Differences to Determine the Optimal Number of Factors to Retain in an Exploratory Factor Analysis
