EFA -No Convergence: number of iterat... PreviousNext
Mplus Discussion > Exploratory Factor Analysis >
Message/Author
 Kristin Tomey posted on Friday, June 21, 2013 - 10:03 am
Hi there,

I have an error message from my EFA output:

NO CONVERGENCE. NUMBER OF ITERATIONS EXCEEDED. PROBLEM OCCURRED IN EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH 10 FACTOR(S).

The User Guide specifies that for this type of convergence problem, I should check to make sure there are no large negative variances / residual variances in the prelim parameter estimates.

So for each section of the output (EFA with 2 factors, EFA with 3 factors, etc etc) I have looked at the "estimated residual variances". I don't know what "large" would be. Can you help me understand? Is a residual variance of 0.5 large? 0.6? 0.9?

Thank you,
KT Tomey
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Friday, June 21, 2013 - 3:24 pm
Please send the output and your license number to support@statmodel.com.
 Andriana Rapti posted on Monday, December 09, 2013 - 7:12 am
I get this error message in my EFA:

NO CONVERGENCE IN ROTATION ALGORITHM. NUMBER OF ITERATIONS EXCEEDED.
PROBLEM OCCURRED IN EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH 2 FACTOR(S).
THE PROBLEM IS PROBABLY DUE TO THE NEGATIVE RESIDUAL VARIANCE FOR
VARIABLE F6.

However, when I switch to estimator = bayes,it is performed. Is this correct?
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Monday, December 09, 2013 - 10:51 am
Bayes keeps residual variances positive through the use of priors. I would consider the one-factor solution.
 Andriana Rapti posted on Monday, December 09, 2013 - 5:07 pm
But I factor gives me significant chi-square and high RMSEA. What should I do? Should I just keep these values?
 Andriana Rapti posted on Monday, December 09, 2013 - 5:50 pm
I am sorry, I meant one-factor gives me significant chi-square and high RMSEA...
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 11:14 am
You can consider not using that item. If the residual variance is very small and not significant, you would do EFA via ESEM and fix it at zero.
 Andriana Rapti posted on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 2:15 pm
I tried it so I added in my model command:
F BY F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 (*1);

(instead of F BY F1 F2 F3 F4 F5;), but I am getting the same results and the same values. What am I doing wrong?
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 5:03 pm
Please send the output that shows the negative residual variance and your license number to support@statmodel.com.
Back to top
Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: