Comparative Evaluation of Orthogonal and Oblique Factor Rotations for Dimension Reduction: Evidence from a Female Undergraduate Obesity-Risk Survey

Exploratory factor analysis is widely used to reduce questionnaire items to a smaller set of interpretable latent dimensions, but the substantive meaning of a solution can depend strongly on the rotation criterion. This study compares three orthogonal rotations (Varimax, Quartimax, and Equamax) and two oblique rotations (Promax and direct Oblimin) using responses from 416 female undergraduates at Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Nigeria. Ten four-point Likert items measured dietary practices, sedentary behaviour, exercise, perceived weight, and concern about weight gain. The data were suitable for exploratory reduction: the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure was 0.65, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, and all variance inflation factors were below 2. A three-factor representation was retained from the scree pattern and interpretability, accounting for a reported 64.88% of cumulative variation. Across rotations, the first factor was defined primarily by items q1, q2, q3, q9, and q10, while q5 and q8 formed a second behavioural dimension. Varimax produced the clearest independent-factor solution; however, Promax gave the most coherent overall representation by allowing the dietary, activity, and weight-perception dimensions to correlate. The reported Tucker congruence coefficient of 0.72 indicates that the compared rotated structures were not equivalent. The findings show that rotation should be selected from substantive expectations and empirical clarity rather than habit. For this survey, Promax offered the best balance between simple structure and realistic dependence among obesity-related behaviours.

exploratory factor analysis; dimension reduction; Varimax; Promax

1. Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various χ2 approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 16(2), 296–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1954.tb00174.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(1), 111–150. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3601 05 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Crawford, C. B., & Ferguson, G. A. (1970). A general rotation criterion and its use in orthogonal rotation. Psychometrika, 35, 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310792 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of esti-mation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Goretzko, D., Pham, T. T. H., & Bu¨hner, M. (2021). Exploratory factor analysis: Current use, methodological developments and recommendations for good practice. Current Psychology, 40, 3510–3521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00300-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Hendrickson, A. E., & White, P. O. (1964). Promax: A quick method for rotation to oblique simple structure. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 17(1), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1964.tb00244.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Jennrich, R. I., & Sampson, P. F. (1966). Rotation for simple loadings. Psychometrika, 31, 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289465 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Jennrich, R. I. (1979). Admissible values of γ in direct Oblimin rotation. Psychometrika, 44(2), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293969 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The Varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289233 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second-generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291817 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Lorenzo-Seva, U., & ten Berge, J. M. F. (2006). Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2(2), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.2.2.57 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Luo, H., Purvis, J. E., & Li, D. (2024). Spherical rotation dimension reduction with geometric loss functions. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25(175), 1–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Nanga, S., Bawah, A. T., Acquaye, B. A., Billa, M.-I., Baeta, F. D., Odai, N. A., Obeng, S. K., & Nsiah, A. D. (2021). Review of dimension reduction methods. Journal of Data Analysis and Information Processing, 9(3), 189–231. https://doi.org/10.4236/jdaip.2021.93013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Neuhaus, J. O., & Wrigley, C. (1954). The Quartimax method: An analytical approach to orthogonal simple structure. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 7(2), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1954.tb00147.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Tribal Child Nutrition and Health in District of Sundargarh: A Public Health Review of ICDS Intervention
• Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Towards Prostate Cancer Screening Amongst Men Aged 40-60 Years in The Buea Health District: A Cross-Sectional Study
• Compliance with JCI Protocols: A Focus on Employee Safety
• Influence and Involvement of Teachers in Menstrual Hygiene Management of Female Secondary School Students in Kogi State, Nigeria
• A Critical Evaluation of Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana in Bihar