Ws us to explain why groups of variables are correlated. For factor analysis to work efficiently, you must work with a correlation matrix and standardized variables. In factor analysis the source variables are unobserved and a factor analytic model is set up such that each factor (F) affects several observed variables (Z). Each Zj also has a unique source of variation Uj that can be thought of as random. With factor analysis, we can estimate the extent to which the factors influence the observed variables (with factor pattern coefficients) and the extent to which the Uj’s affect their corresponding observed variables. Unlike PCA, factor analysis has an underlying statistical model that partitions the total variance into common and unique variance and focuses on explaining the common variance, rather than the total variance, in the observed variables on the basis of a relatively few underlying factors. PCA on the other hand is just a mathematical re-expression of the data that maximizes variance. To estimate the factor analysis in our study that uses ordinal measures an important assumption has to be made. When estimating standard factor analysis based on Pearson’s correlations, we assume the variables are normally distributed and measured as continuous. If however, and you have variables that are dichotomous or ordinal (but not nominal), factor analysis can be performed using a polychoric correlation matrix. Therefore, these analyses are performed using the flexibility of the polychoric correlation matrix as our measures are ordinal. All results of the factor analysis are weighted using the survey’s pweights and factors are rotated using varimax and assumed to be orthogonal.MG-132 msds Author Pan-RAS-IN-1 site Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript3We want to clarify that the creation of a latent factor underlying group consciousness does not imply moving away from a multidimensional conceptualization of this concept. Rather, we are attempting to determine if the measures typically associated with this concept are actually tapping into the same latent factor (group consciousness), providing scholars with justification to approach the measurement of this concept from a multidimensional perspective. Polit Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.Sanchez and VargasPageResultsThe following survey items are used in this analysis: group commonality, collective action, perceived discrimination, and linked fate. The coding scheme and survey wording are provided to better illustrate the measurement of each item. As reflected in Table 1, and consistent with extant theory, Blacks have the highest sense of group commonality (perceived commonality with one’s own group) followed by Hispanics, Whites, and then Asians. In regards to statistical significance, results from Chi-square means tests indicate that Blacks commonality with other Blacks and Hispanics commonality with other Hispanics are statistically different than Asians commonality with other Asians (lower commonality), which is significant at the 0.001 confidence level. The next dimension of group consciousness is collective action or the idea one must work together collectively to improve your own race or ethnic group’s situation. Summary statistics indicate that Blacks have the highest sense of collective action followed by Hispanics, Asians, and then Whites. In regards to statistical significance, results from Chisquare means test indicate suggests that Blacks are the only grou.Ws us to explain why groups of variables are correlated. For factor analysis to work efficiently, you must work with a correlation matrix and standardized variables. In factor analysis the source variables are unobserved and a factor analytic model is set up such that each factor (F) affects several observed variables (Z). Each Zj also has a unique source of variation Uj that can be thought of as random. With factor analysis, we can estimate the extent to which the factors influence the observed variables (with factor pattern coefficients) and the extent to which the Uj’s affect their corresponding observed variables. Unlike PCA, factor analysis has an underlying statistical model that partitions the total variance into common and unique variance and focuses on explaining the common variance, rather than the total variance, in the observed variables on the basis of a relatively few underlying factors. PCA on the other hand is just a mathematical re-expression of the data that maximizes variance. To estimate the factor analysis in our study that uses ordinal measures an important assumption has to be made. When estimating standard factor analysis based on Pearson’s correlations, we assume the variables are normally distributed and measured as continuous. If however, and you have variables that are dichotomous or ordinal (but not nominal), factor analysis can be performed using a polychoric correlation matrix. Therefore, these analyses are performed using the flexibility of the polychoric correlation matrix as our measures are ordinal. All results of the factor analysis are weighted using the survey’s pweights and factors are rotated using varimax and assumed to be orthogonal.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript3We want to clarify that the creation of a latent factor underlying group consciousness does not imply moving away from a multidimensional conceptualization of this concept. Rather, we are attempting to determine if the measures typically associated with this concept are actually tapping into the same latent factor (group consciousness), providing scholars with justification to approach the measurement of this concept from a multidimensional perspective. Polit Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.Sanchez and VargasPageResultsThe following survey items are used in this analysis: group commonality, collective action, perceived discrimination, and linked fate. The coding scheme and survey wording are provided to better illustrate the measurement of each item. As reflected in Table 1, and consistent with extant theory, Blacks have the highest sense of group commonality (perceived commonality with one’s own group) followed by Hispanics, Whites, and then Asians. In regards to statistical significance, results from Chi-square means tests indicate that Blacks commonality with other Blacks and Hispanics commonality with other Hispanics are statistically different than Asians commonality with other Asians (lower commonality), which is significant at the 0.001 confidence level. The next dimension of group consciousness is collective action or the idea one must work together collectively to improve your own race or ethnic group’s situation. Summary statistics indicate that Blacks have the highest sense of collective action followed by Hispanics, Asians, and then Whites. In regards to statistical significance, results from Chisquare means test indicate suggests that Blacks are the only grou.