+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Rotation in Principal Components Analysis

  1. #1
    Points: 949, Level: 16
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 51

    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Rotation in Principal Components Analysis




    Hi,

    I was wondering if anybody could give me some general advice on a specific issue.

    Is it possible to orthogonally (varimax) rotate when only one principal component is extracted?

    SPSS does not allow you to rotate when only one principal component is extracted and after failing to find any literature on this issue we are struggling to defend our rationale for not rotating when only a single principal component meets the criteria for extraction. I was under the assumption that you need two axis (i.e. two principal components) in order to do any rotation.

    Your help would be much appreciated. Many thanks.

  2. #2
    TS Contributor
    Points: 6,786, Level: 54
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 164

    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    524
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 112 Times in 100 Posts

    Re: Rotation in Principal Components Analysis

    Just out of curiosity, why would you want to rotate in this specific case?

  3. #3
    TS Contributor
    Points: 22,383, Level: 93
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 967
    spunky's Avatar
    Location
    vancouver, canada
    Posts
    2,135
    Thanks
    166
    Thanked 537 Times in 431 Posts

    Re: Rotation in Principal Components Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by DanWeaving View Post
    I was under the assumption that you need two axis (i.e. two principal components) in order to do any rotation.
    you are correct. if anyone criticises you as for why you didn't rotate *one* factor, whack them in the head with a really, really hard and big book.
    for all your psychometric needs! https://psychometroscar.wordpress.com/about/

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to spunky For This Useful Post:

    DanWeaving (01-09-2014)

  5. #4
    Points: 949, Level: 16
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 51

    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Rotation in Principal Components Analysis

    Many thanks Spunky. This is what we thought.

    Basically we have a manuscript under peer review which has multiple PCA's. We have a reviewer who has asked us for a strong methodological explanation as to why we didn't rotate two conditions in which only one PC was extracted during those conditions. Are you able to point us to any literature to respond with which explains why this cannot be done? I appreciate this may be difficult as it is quite simple logically why you cannot rotate when only one axis is present!

    Many thanks again.

  6. #5
    Human
    Points: 12,676, Level: 73
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 174
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    GretaGarbo's Avatar
    Posts
    1,362
    Thanks
    455
    Thanked 462 Times in 402 Posts

    Re: Rotation in Principal Components Analysis

    That statement by the reviewer amused me.

    Quote Originally Posted by DanWeaving View Post

    We have a reviewer who has asked us for a strong methodological explanation as to why we didn't rotate ....
    You could have used many different methods. Are you supposed to motivate why you did NOT choose any of them? It would be ambitious to motivate why you used PCA. But to motivate why not using any of the other methods. That seems very strange and absurd.

    I guess people use PCA because it summarizes the data in a good way, (maximising the variance given the length of the coefficient vector).

    Maybe a one component PCA can be said to be “rotated” if it is multiplied by -1. That would be like a 180 degrees rotation. Like: Ax = lambda x is equivalent to -Ax = -lambda x.

  7. #6
    TS Contributor
    Points: 22,383, Level: 93
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 967
    spunky's Avatar
    Location
    vancouver, canada
    Posts
    2,135
    Thanks
    166
    Thanked 537 Times in 431 Posts

    Re: Rotation in Principal Components Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by DanWeaving View Post
    Are you able to point us to any literature to respond with which explains why this cannot be done?
    i cannot, unfortunately (although hopefully there's something out there). this similar to asking for a reference as why is it that 1+1=2.

    as Greta said, sure. you can rotate one principal component all you want and still get a solution but it would be meaningless because it has no reference but itself.

    think about it. you mentioned a classic method of orthogonal rotation (varimax). what is the reference against which said principal component is going to become orthogonal to? itself? so the pc becomes uncorrelated with itself?

    i mean, it *is* doable (just choose an appropriate rotation matrix and that's it). but then you rotate it... and now what?
    for all your psychometric needs! https://psychometroscar.wordpress.com/about/

  8. #7
    Points: 949, Level: 16
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 51

    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Rotation in Principal Components Analysis

    Hi guys,

    Many thanks for your replies to this issue. It has helped to confirm what we previously thought. Hopefully the reviewer understands what we are trying to explain!

  9. #8
    Fortran must die
    Points: 58,790, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    noetsi's Avatar
    Posts
    6,532
    Thanks
    692
    Thanked 915 Times in 874 Posts

    Re: Rotation in Principal Components Analysis


    Unfortunately being a reviewer is no guarantee you understand the methods you are reviewing. A variety of studies have shown that elite medical journals commonly publish mistakes in logistic regression for example (such as treating relative risk and odds ratios as the same thing). Obviously had the reviewers understood the method this would not have occured.

    As previous posters have noted, it makes absolutely no sense to rotate something when you only extracted one factor. If you are looking for support for this I suggest chosing a book on PCA and citing why you rotate from that (which should make it obvious why you would not rotate here).
    "Very few theories have been abandoned because they were found to be invalid on the basis of empirical evidence...." Spanos, 1995

+ Reply to Thread

           




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts






Advertise on Talk Stats