Skip to content

Comparison with SPSS #120

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
loukasilias opened this issue Apr 21, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Comparison with SPSS #120

loukasilias opened this issue Apr 21, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@loukasilias
Copy link

Hello,

I am comparing the results of this library with SPSS and I observe that they are different.
Is it logical or is it a bug?

Thank you!

@desilinguist
Copy link
Member

Hi @loukasilias, this library is mostly a direct port of functionality from R's psych library. There's no expectation of parity with SPSS.

@nachomaiz
Copy link

@loukasilias maybe your issue is related to #89 or #90 (I had a similar question in the past). There are also some Important Notes in the docs which might be relevant.

@JoelPasapera
Copy link

I have a similar problem and it is that when performing the factor analysis the factorial matrix of this library differs with the factorial matrix of SPSS.

Specifically, the library assigns factor loadings differently. This influences:

  1. how the items are grouped,
  2. how many items each dimension or construct has,
  3. how the path diagram is structured.

could you put the default spss configuration in the library calculations ? or in any case specify which methods are used in spss and r studio to choose from ?

I think it would be a good idea to replicate the SPSS functionality as a standard for calculations. But in case you want to keep the R studio approach you could give the option to the user to choose to run the factor analysis with the default values instead of having to understand all the mathematics behind the factor analysis and do it manually.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants