More on EM for ML Factor Analysis
PsychometrikaPublished 1 June 1983
Donald B. Rubin, Dorothy T. Thayer
Citations33
SJR quartileQ1
SJR score1.90
SNIP2.06
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
Study Snapshot
ObjectiveStudy objective
MethodsResearch methodology
PopulationPopulation studied
Sample sizeSample sizes
OutcomesStudy outcomes here
ResultsStudy results comes here
LimitationsResearch study limitations comes here
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
Abstract
We address several issues that are raised by Bentler and Tanaka's [1983] discussion of Rubin and Thayer [1982]. Our conclusions are: standard methods do not completely monitor the possible existence of multiple local maxima; summarizing inferential precision by the standard output based on second derivatives of the log likelihood at a maximum can be inappropriate, even if there exists a unique local maximum; EM and LISREL can be viewed as complementary, albeit not entirely adequate, tools for factor analysis.
Keywords
Computer ScienceBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
The Annals of StatisticsOn the Convergence Properties of the EM Algorithm
3,252 Citations1983Changbao Wu
PsychometrikaA General Approach to Confirmatory Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis
2,492 Citations1969Karl G. Jöreskog
PsychometrikaEM Algorithms for ML Factor Analysis
602 Citations1982Donald B. Rubin, Dorothy T. Thayer
PsychometrikaProblems with EM Algorithms for ML Factor Analysis
39 Citations1983Peter M. Bentler, Jeffrey S. Tanaka
It is shown here, in contrast, that these second derivatives verify that Rubin and Thayer did not find multiple local maxima as claimed, and the standard errors obtained from the second derivatives and the Fisher information matrix thus remain appropriate where ML assumptions are met.