Premium
The effect of domain shape on principal components analyses: A reply
Author(s) -
Legates David R.
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
international journal of climatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.58
H-Index - 166
eISSN - 1097-0088
pISSN - 0899-8418
DOI - 10.1002/joc.3370130207
Subject(s) - principal component analysis , domain (mathematical analysis) , confusion , variation (astronomy) , principal (computer security) , mathematics , econometrics , factor analysis , statistics , computer science , mathematical analysis , psychology , physics , astrophysics , psychoanalysis , operating system
In a previous paper, I reevaluated the domain shape dependence arguments of Buell and concluded that ‘unrotated’ principal components do represent, to a very large degree, the underlying structure represented in the dispersion matrix. Richman's comments are largely based as a defence of component rotation—a subject that was not addressed in my original paper. It is my thesis that much of the alleged uninterpretability of ‘unrotated’ components stems from an attempt to retrieve characteristic scenarios or ‘modes of the variation’ (which PCA does not purport to do) and not from an overdependence on the shape of the domain. This misapplication often results from a confusion of the goals of principal components analysis and common factor analysis as is evidenced in Richman's comments.