A construction method is given for all factors that satisfy the assumptions of the model for factor analysis, including partially determined factors where certain error variances are zero. Various criteria for the seriousness of indeterminacy are related. It is shown that B. F. Green's (1976) conjecture holds: For a linear factor predictor the mean squared error of prediction is constant over all possible factors. A simple and general geometric interpretation of factor indeterminacy is given on the basis of the distance between multiple factors. It is illustrated that variable elimination can have a large effect on the seriousness of factor indeterminacy. A simulation study reveals that if the mean square error of factor prediction equals .5, then two thirds of the persons are "correctly" selected by the best linear factor predictor. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)
MULTIFILE
The subject of factor indeterminacy has a vast history in factor analysis (Guttman, 1955; Lederman, 1938; Wilson, 1928). It has lead to strong differences in opinion (Steiger, 1979). The current paper gives necessary and sufficient conditions for observability of factors in terms of the parameter matrices and a finite number of variables. Five conditions are given which rigorously define indeterminacy. It is shown that (un)observable factors are (in)determinate. Specifically, the indeterminacy proof by Guttman is extended to Heywood cases. The results are illustrated by two examples and implications for indeterminacy are discussed.
DOCUMENT
The level of work engagement is an important aspect of organizational culture. In this empirical study the relation between engagement and experienced professionalism of probation officers is investigated. Starting from ideal-typical theories on professionalism, a psychometric instrument for measuring experienced professionalism was developed and administered to a sample of Dutch probation officers. Two reliable scales could be constructed that account for 64% of the variance in work engagement. Of these, professional ethos (humanistic values) is the most important predictor of work engagement in probation. Professional facilitation (support from the surroundings), however, also contributes to engagement.
DOCUMENT
