No abstract

The purpose of this article is to reduce potential statistical barriers and open doors to canonical correlation analysis (CCA) for applied behavioral scientists and personality researchers. CCA was selected for discussion, as it represents the highest level of the general linear model (GLM) and can be rather easily conceptualized as a method closely linked with the more widely understood Pearson r correlation coefficient. An understanding of CCA can lead to a more global appreciation of other univariate and multivariate methods in the GLM. We attempt to demonstrate CCA with basic language, using technical terminology only when necessary for understanding and use of the method. We present an entire example of a CCA analysis using SPSS (Version 11.0) with personality data.

Given the proliferation of factor analysis applications in the literature, the present article examines the use of factor analysis in current published research across four psychological journals. Notwithstanding ease of analysis due to computers, the appropriate use of factor analysis requires a series of thoughtful researcher judgments. These judgments directly affect results and interpretations. The authors examine across studies (a) the decisions made while conducting exploratory factor analyses ( N = 60) and (b) the information reported from the analyses. In doing so, they present a review of the current status of factor analytic practice, including comment on common errors in use and reporting. Recommendations are proffered for future practice as regards analytic decisions and reporting in empirical research.

While multicollinearity may increase the difficulty of interpreting multiple regression (MR) results, it should not cause undue problems for the knowledgeable researcher. In the current paper, we argue that rather than using one technique to investigate regression results, researchers should consider multiple indices to understand the contributions that predictors make not only to a regression model, but to each other as well. Some of the techniques to interpret MR effects include, but are not limited to, correlation coefficients, beta weights, structure coefficients, all possible subsets regression, commonality coefficients, dominance weights, and relative importance weights. This article will review a set of techniques to interpret MR effects, identify the elements of the data on which the methods focus, and identify statistical software to support such analyses.

No abstract