These scores were computed by the present authors from summed responses to multiple-choice questions In the 1949 evaluation interview.tained in the present follow-up do not differ significantly from zero. The only correlations of any magnitude are those between objective and rated measures of attitude. These are moderately high when the
In a recent article in this journal addressed to the effects of score transformations in Q and R factor analysis techniques, Broverman (1961) claims to have presented ". . . new arguments and empirical evidence of important differences not previously recognized between the two techniques as they are commonly employed." These differences are said to include "differences in results, differences in the type of inference possible from the results, and consequently differences in the theoretical implications of the data"-in a word, "differences . . . of the greatest magnitude for research in psychology."The present note is intended to demonstrate that the differences Broverman obtained from his -Q and R factor analyses do not constitute the empirical warrant for such claims. It will be shown that when Broverman's own data are reanalysed and the appropriate comparisons are made, a clear and understandable relationship emerges between the results of Q and R factor analyses "as they are commonly employed." BROVERMAN'S REASONING Broverman correctly observes that Burt's (1937) proof of the exact transposability of person and test factors does not apply to Q and R factor analyses "as they are commonly employed." He goes far beyond this, however, when he asserts that factor solutions obtained from a Q analysis (correlating people) are not even
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.