Exploratory factor analysis using SPSS

Mike Crowson, Ph.D.

August 2023

SPSS data file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13n905vAwXDlUWFbrYEV0HFalJnRwCz00/view

Youtube video demonstration: https://youtu.be/-rJ34R9ZVbI
We will be factor analyzing items from the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI; Schraw et al., 2002) based on data collected from
Chilean high school students in this study. Download a copy of the SPSS file containing the data here. The items for our
analyses all have the root name 'ce' (see screenshot below). Although the original authors of the study analyzed all 28 items,
to keep our output simpler, we will only perform the analysis on the 17 items contained in Table 2.
The items correspond to the following variables in the SPSS data file: ce1, ce2, ce3, ce4, ce5, ce8, ce9, ce11, ce14, ce15,
ce17, ce20, ce22, ce24-ce27.
 Step 1: Assess factorability of correlation matrix

[For this step, we will assume you have already examined the distributions of your variables and considered factors that
may have impacted the quality of the correlations being submitted to factor analysis.]
The first question you need to ask yourself during EFA is whether you have the kind of data that would support factor
analytic investigation and yield reliable results. Some issues can produce a factor solution that is not particularly
trustworthy or reliable (Cerny & Kaiser, 1977; Dziuban & Shirkey, 1974), whereas others can result in algorithmic problems
that may prevent a solution from even being generated (Watkins, 2018). The way to address this question is to evaluate
the correlation matrix based on the set of measured variables being submitted to factor analysis. [In the current example,
the measured variables are the items from the EBI. Hereafter, I will be referring to "items" throughout the discussion.]
Answering the question of whether it is appropriate to conduct factor analysis in the first place can assist you in
correcting problems before they emerge during analysis or (at the very least) serve as valuable information that can assist
you in diagnosing problems that occur when running your EFA.
Generating output in SPSS for assessing factorability
Investigate correlations among items

A common preliminary step is to examine the correlation matrix based on your items for the presence of
correlations that exceed .30 (in absolute value; Watkins, 2022). During factor analysis, the idea is to extract latent
variables (factors) to account for (or explain) the correlational structure among a set of measured variables. If the
items in your correlation matrix are generally trivial (i.e., very small) or near zero, this logically precludes
investigation of common factors since there is little common variation among the variables that will be shared.
Additionally, when screening your correlation matrix, you should also look for very high correlations (e.g., r's
> .90) among items that might suggest the presence of linear (or near-linear) dependencies among your variables.
The presence of multicollinearity among your variables can produce unstable results, whereas singularity in your
correlation matrix will generally result in the termination of the analysis (with a message indicating your matrix is
nonpositive definite). In the presence of singularity, certain matrix operations cannot be performed (Watkins,
2021). [Note: A common reason why singularity occurs is when an analyst attempts to factor analyze correlations
involving a set of items along with a full scale score that is based on the sum or average of those items.]
The matrix is symmetric with 1's on the principal diagonal. If you wish to count the number of unique correlations greater
than .30 (in absolute value), simply count the number in either the lower OR upper triangle. Counting the number of
correlations in the lower triangle of this matrix, there look to be about 10 correlations [out of the p(p-1)/2 = 17(16)/2 =
176 unique correlations; remember, the matrix is symmetric about the principal diagonal containing 1’s] that exceed .30.
None of the correlations exceed .90, which indicates to me low likelihood of any linear dependencies.
Investigate determinant of correlation matrix

The determinant of a correlation matrix can be thought of as a generalized variance. If this value is 0, your matrix is singular
(which would preclude matrix inversion). If the determinant is greater than .00001, then you have a matrix that should be
factorable. In our results, the determinant is .113, which is greater than .00001. You will find the determinant in your output at
the bottom of the correlation matrix we just investigated.
Bartlett’s test

This test is used to test whether your correlation matrix differs significantly from an identity matrix [a matrix containing 1’s
on the diagonal and 0’s in the off-diagonal elements]. In a correlation matrix, if all off-diagonal elements are zero, this
signifies your variables are completely orthogonal. Failure to reject the null when performing this test is an indication that
your correlation matrix is factorable. In our output, Bartlett’s test is statistically significant (p<.001). [Keep in mind that
Bartlett's test is often significant, even with matrices that have more trivial correlations, as the power of the test is
influenced by sample size. Factor analysis is generally performed using large samples.]
KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy

The KMO MSA is another index to assess whether it makes sense to conduct EFA on a set of measured variables. Values
closer to 1 on the overall MSA indicate greater possibility of the presence of common factors (making it more reasonable to
perform EFA).

Here, we see the overall MSA is .78, which falls into Kaiser and Rice’s (1974) “middling” (but factorable) range [see scale
below; Kaiser had a way with words didn't he???]
You should also consider examining the KMO value associated with each item in your scale. These values are found in
the principal diagonal of the anti-image correlation matrix. Using the scale above, items with KMO values < .50 are
particular candidates for removal prior to factor analysis. The KMO values in the full matrix range from .666
(mediocre) to .846 (meritorious). These results suggest maintaining the full set of 17 items for factor analysis.
 Step 2: Determination of number of factors

Once you have concluded (from Step 1) that it is appropriate to conduct EFA, the next step is to estimate the number of
factors that may account for the interrelationships among your items. Historically, analysts have leaned on the Kaiser criterion
(i.e., eigenvalue cutoff rule) to the exclusion of better options. This largely seems to be the result of this criterion being
programmed into many statistical packages as a default. Nevertheless, this rule often leads to over-factoring and is strongly
discouraged as a sole basis for determining number of factors.

Ideally, you will try to answer the 'number of factors question' using multiple investigative approaches. This view is endorsed
by Fabrigar and Wegener (2012) who stated, “determining the appropriate number of common factors is a decision that is
best addressed in a holistic fashion by considering the configuration of evidence presented by several of the better performing
procedures” (p. 55). It is important to recognize, however, that different analytic approaches can suggest different possible
models (i.e., models that vary in the number of factors) that may be explain your data. Resist the temptation to run from this
ambiguity by selecting one and relying solely on it (unless perhaps it is a method that has a strong empirical track record for
correctly identifying factors; a good example is parallel analysis). Instead, consider the different factor models[or at least a
reasonable subset of them] as 'candidates' for further investigation. From there, perform EFA on each model, rotate the
factors, and interpret them. The degree of factor saturation and interpretability of those factors can then be used as a basis
for deciding which of the candidate models may best explain your data.

See this posting for discussion of consequences of over- and under-factoring.

Methods 1 & 2: Parallel analysis and MAP test

Parallel analysis is a method that has strong empirical support as a basis for determining the number of factors. This method
involves simulating a large number of correlation matrices (assuming the same number of variables and sample size as the
original data) and then computing the average or the 95th percentile of the eigenvalues from those randomly generated
matrices. These randomly generated eigenvalues are compared against the eigenvalues from the raw data. You maintain the
number of factors that contain eigenvalues from your raw data that exceed those generated at random (using either the
mean or 95th percentile of the eigenvalues).

The MAP test involves comparing PCA models that vary in the number of extracted components with respect to sums of
squared partial correlations. The starting point for the method is to extract 0 components and simply compute the average
of the squared zero-order correlations among a set of variables. Next, a single component (i.e., 1 component model) is
extracted and the average of the squared partial correlations (i.e., after partialling the first component) is computed.
Following, two components are extracted (i.e., 2 component model) and the average of the squared partial correlations (i.e.,
after partialling the first two components) is computed; and so on. The number of recommended factors based on this
procedure is associated with the component model that has the smallest average (partial) correlations.
I have created a new syntax file based on O'Connor's syntax for conducting parallel analysis and the MAP test, whereby both
functions are integrated into a single file. Download here. To perform the analysis, simply open up the raw data file and the
syntax file. [My strong suggestion is to avoid having multiple other files open.]
The first section of the file is to specify the parallel analysis. In line 15, simply type the names of your variables. If you have
consecutive variables you can type X to Y (see illustration below). Line 18 allows you to select the number of simulations. I
have it set at 1000. Line 21 asks you what type of percentile you would want if using a percentile method for the random
eigenvalues. The default (which I recommend) is 95. Line 26 gives you the option of basing the decision on number of factors
on extraction of principal components (which is historically the way parallel analysis has tended to be done) or using a
common factor analysis model. For this analysis, we will stick with principal components extraction.
Scroll to the bottom of the file and then add the variable names in line 183.
Following, right click and select Run All. This should generate your output for both parallel analysis and the MAP test.
The following contains the parallel analysis output. We see that the eigenvalues for the first three factors (see Raw Data
column) exceed the 95th percentile (and even the mean) of the randomly generated eigenvalues. At the fourth factor, the
random eigenvalues begin to exceed the eigenvalues from the data. As such, the analysis suggests extraction of three
factors.

See this posting for a syntax-free alternative for conducting the parallel analysis using PCA. Another video demonstration
using this method is provided here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6FUT0h-bhY
Next, we see the output for the MAP test. Interestingly, the smallest squared partial correlation was associated with a one-
factor model. As such, the analysis suggests a one-factor model may be tenable.
Method 3: Scree test

The scree test is one of the older methods for identifying number of factors. This test involves plotting the eigenvalues (Y axis)
against factor number (X axis). In general, the plot of the eigenvalues look like the side of a mountain with the base of the
mountain containing 'rubble'. To obtain the scree plot go under the Extraction tab and select 'Scree plot'. [The default Kaiser
criterion is also in place as well.]
Here is the output generated using this function...
To perform the analysis, you simply look for the 'elbow' that demarcates between the major factors [found on the main
slope(s)] and the trivial factors [found at the base]. For instance, we can visualize the 'elbow' occurring in the graph after
the third factor [technically, the roots here are principal components, but we are using these to estimate number of
factors]. This would suggest a three-factor solution may be tenable.

A limitation of the scree plot is its subjectivity. Moreover, there are times when there may be other 'break-points' that
can cloud the picture of how many factors to retain.
Method 4: Kaiser criterion/eigenvalue cutoff rule

The Kaiser criterion (aka, eigenvalue cutoff rule) states that the number of factors to retain during factor analysis is
equivalent to the number having an eigenvalue greater than 1. This criterion should only be applied following extraction
of the principal components from an unreduced correlation matrix. The idea behind the Kaiser criterion is that you should
only retain those factors that account for at least as much variation as at least one measured variable (see Kaiser, 1960). A
major criticism of use of this criterion is that it has tendency to result in overfactoring. The Kaiser criterion is the default
approach to identifying the number of factors in SPSS.

default
In the table below, the first column (Total) under Initial Eigenvalues contains eigenvalues from the principal components
extraction [these are also the same eigenvalues that are plotted against component number in our scree plot above]. As
you can see, the eigenvalues appear in descending order, with each subsequent component explaining less and less of the
total variation in the original set of measured variables (items). The first three of the eigenvalues in the table exceed 1.
With the default (Kaiser criterion) in place, the program then decided to retain these three components [see the
eigenvalues under Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings]. The reason the eigenvalues for these factors is the same as the
original is that the default extraction method is Principal components analysis (which is another problem, since PCA is not
based on the common factor analytic model).
If you select an alternative extraction approach (such as Principal axis factoring, or PAF) without changing the default, it
will remain in place and continue to force the program to select the number of factors that meet the Kaiser criterion -
irrespective of any number you decide upon using other means of investigation such as the scree plot, the MAP test,
parallel analysis, etc. Below is an example of the default in place, even after selecting PAF.

default
The following table contains the eigenvalues from the initial PCA (see Total column under Initial Eigenalues) and the
eigenvalues (see Total column under Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings) for the unrotated solution using Principal Axis
Factoring (PAF). The number of principal factors extracted is equal to the number of initial components (3) with
eigenvalues greater than 1.
The only way to overcome this problem is to decide on the number of factors (based on those other tests) and then
force a factor solution with your preferred extraction approach. [It just so happens that the Kaiser criterion suggested
the same number of factors we identified using a couple of other approaches - e.g., parallel analysis and scree test.
However, the suggested number of factors can differ between approaches. As such, you may ultimately need to
examine several models differing in the number of factors to decide which is the best way to represent the data. That
would require using this option as well.]

Select and type in number of factors to

extract here (to override default)

See also this posting related to problematic defaults in SPSS when conducting EFA.
 Step 3: Final extraction of factors, rotation, and interpretation

At this point, I have determined the most likely candidate is a model containing three factors [The one-factor model suggested
by the MAP test is unlikely, especially given evidence epistemic beliefs are multidimensional]. For this reason, the remainder
of this discussion will be based on a three-factor model. To perform the analysis, we will rely on Principal Axis Factoring (PAF)
for factor extraction. Watkins (2018) notes factor extraction involves transforming correlations to factor space in a manner
that is computationally, but not necessarily conceptually, convenient. As such, extracted factors are generally rotated to
"achieve a simpler and theoretically more meaningful solution" (p. 231). For our example, we will consider two factor rotation
approaches (Promax and Varimax) to facilitate interpretation of the final set of factors that are extracted. Promax rotation is
one type of oblique rotation that relaxes the constraint of orthogonality of factors, thereby allowing them to correlate.
Varimax rotation is a type of orthogonal rotation. When Varimax rotation is used, the factors are not permitted to correlate
following rotation of the factor axes.
PAF with Promax rotation

To perform the analysis using the dropdown windows, go under the Extraction tab and click 'Fixed number of factors to
extract'. Provide the number of factors to extract (based on the steps taken above to determine the number of factors).
Next, click the Rotation button and select Promax. The Kappa value has an impact on the degree of correlation between
factors that is allowable following rotation. The default in SPSS is 4.
The table below contains initial and extracted communalities. During principal axis factoring (PAF), the values in the first
column (Initial) are placed into the principal diagonal of the correlation matrix (instead of 1's). It is this reduced correlation
matrix that is factored. The Initial communalities are computed as the squared multiple correlation between each measured
variable (item) and the remaining variables (items). [You can easily generate these by performing a series of regressions
where you regress each variable onto the remaining variables and obtaining the R-squares.] The Extraction communalities
are final estimates of the proportion of variation in each item accounted for jointly by the set of common factors that have
been extracted.
The next table provides a summary of the factors that are extracted (both pre- and post-rotation). The eigenvalues in the Total
column under Initial Eigenvalues are the same ones we saw above. That is, they will always be the eigenvalues after applying
principal components extraction to the unreduced correlation matrix. The eigenvalue associated with a given component
summarizes how much variation is accounted for in the original set of variables (items) by a given component. The first
component accounts for as much variation as 3.059 of the original measured variables (items). We can compute the % of
variance by dividing the eigenvalue by the total number of items (i.e., 17): 3.059/17 = .1799 (or 17.99%). The second
component accounts for as much variation as 2.042 of the original items. This translates into 2.042/17 = .1201 (or about 12% of
the variation). Cumulatively, the first and second components account for 30% of the variation in the items. Component 3
accounts for as much variation as 1.427 items, which is approximately (1.427/17)*100% = 8.39% of the variation. Cumulatively,
Components 1-3 account for 38.4% of the variation in the items. Notice that the fourth component explains less variation than a
single measured variable. And so on.
The values in the Total column (under Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings) are eigenvalues based on the final iterated
PAF solution. These eigenvalues represent the amount of variation in the original set of items accounted for by the three
extracted factors. Factor 1 accounts for as much variation as 2.335 of the original items [or (2.335/17)*100% = 13.735%].
Factor 2 accounts for as much variation as 1.351 of the original items [or (1.351/17)*100% = 7.947%]. Factor 3 accounts for
as much variation as .703 of the original items [or (.703/17)*100% = 4.135%].
The next set of values [Rotated Sums of Squared Loadings] are eigenvalues following factor rotation. Since the factors are now
allowed to correlate (recall, Promax is an oblique rotation), we cannot compute percentage of variance uniquely accounted
for in the items due to the rotated factors.
The next set of output contains a Pattern matrix with unrotated factor loadings. The loadings are zero-order correlations
between the items and the factors that have been extracted.
It is instructive to think about how these loadings are related to the eigenvalues and final communalities in the previous
two tables. First, the communalities in the Extraction column (see below) can be computed as the sum of the squared
loadings in the factor pattern matrix. For 'ce1', the communality is computed as: (.095) 2+(.33)2+(.299)2 = .207. For 'ce5',
the communality is computed as: (.524)2+(-.056)2+(-.029)2 = .278. Since the factors are extracted such they are
orthogonal, the square of a particular loading indicates the proportion of variation uniquely accounted for by a factor.
Moreover, summing across those squares provides an R-square type value (i.e., the communality) indicating the
proportion of variation in an item accounted for by the set of factors.
The eigenvalues for the unrotated factors (see below) is equal to the sum of the squared loadings within each factor. The
eigenvalue for the first factor can be computed as the sum of squared loadings (from the first column in the factor pattern
matrix). Specifically, we can compute it as follows: (.095) 2+(.00)2+(.542)2+(.216)2+...+(.531)2=2.335. The eigenvalue for the
second factor is equal to the sum of squared loadings for that factor: (.330)2+(.358)2+(.089)2+(.495)2+...+(-.146)2=1.351. The
eigenvalue for the third factor can be computed as: (.299)2+(.425)2+(.031)2+(-.349)2+...+(-.014)2=.703.
The loadings in the unrotated factor pattern matrix are generally not interpreted and are not particularly useful in providing
conceptual clarity when attempting to make sense of the factors that have been extracted. The next set of output contains
matrices that are useful for naming the factors and understanding their relationships.

The first matrix below is referred to as a rotated factor pattern matrix. The loadings in this matrix are akin to standardized
regression coefficients (Watkins, 2018). The loading for a particular item on a given factor represents the association between
the item and factor after partialling the other factors from that association.
The next matrix is a Structure matrix. This matrix contains the zero-order correlations between each item and the latent
factors. Unlike the pattern matrix above, the loadings do not partial the remaining factors from the association between
an item and a given factor.
The Pattern matrix and Structure matrix are used to give verbal meaning (or name) the latent factors. When the factors are
rotated, the idea is to create a structure whereby each factor has a mixture of higher and lower (near zero) loading items
and each item loads nontrivially on at least one - preferably only one - of the latent factors (Pituch & Stevens, 2016). The
analyst examines the pattern of loadings on each factor and then using the items that load non-trivially to name/define
that factor. Different analysts have different minimum loading criteria (for an item to be used in naming a factor) they rely
on, but in general these will fall somewhere in the |.30| to |.40| range (Watkins, 2018). The idea is to define factors using
indicators that are large enough to be of practical use. Keep in mind that positive loadings mean that an item is positively
related to the underlying factor; negative loadings mean an item is negatively related to the factor. Following an oblique
rotation - such as Promax - the primary matrix you should be analyzing to name the factors is the Pattern matrix.
Below, I provide the rotated factor pattern coefficients for each of the items and the three factors. For this example we will use a
loading criterion of |.30|. Values meeting this criterion are displayed in bold. Within the same factor, positive and negative
loadings indicate items that are related to that factor in opposite directions.
F1=fixed ability and F2-omniscient F3=Belief in simple
quick learning authority and certain
knowledge

1. Most things worth knowing are easy to understand. .032 .027 .445
2. What is true is a matter of opinion. (R) -.051 -.065 .570
3. Students who learn things quickly are the most successful. .495 .133 .107
4. People should always obey the law .009 .660 -.071
5. People’s intellectual potential is fixed at birth. .513 .070 -.021
8. Really smart students don’t have to work as hard to do well in school. .475 -.100 .107
9. If a person tries too hard to understand a problem, they will most likely end up being confused. .361 -.082 .156
11. The best ideas are often the most simple. .095 .029 .376
14. How well you do in school depends on how smart you are. .496 .083 -.020
15. If you don’t learn something quickly you won’t ever learn it. .618 -.067 -.033
17. Things are simpler than most professors would have you believe. .122 -.012 .300
20. If you don’t understand a chapter the first time through, going back over it won’t help. .449 -.105 -.138
22. The more you know about a topic, the more there is to know. (R) -.132 .031 .319
24. Smart people are born that way. .456 .094 -.005
25. When someone in authority tells me what to do, I usually do it. -.104 .628 .082
26. People shouldn’t question authority. .096 .522 .001
27. Working on a problem with no quick solution is a waste of time. .550 -.005 -.050
On Factor 1, ce3, ce5, ce8, ce9, ce14, ce15, ce20, ce24, and ce27 all met the loading criterion. Thematically, the items on
Factor 1 appear to represent an amalgam of beliefs that intellectual ability is fixed at birth and that learning is something
which occurs quickly or not at all. We will call this factor 'Belief in Fixed ability and Quick Learning'. On Factor 2, ce4, ce25,
and ce26 met the loading criterion. Thematically, they reflect a belief that knowledge stems from omniscient authority. We
will name this factor 'Belief in Omniscient Authority'. For Factor 3, ce1, ce2, ce11, ce17, and ce22 all met the loading
criterion. The items ce2 and ce22 were negatively-worded items and were reverse coded prior to inclusion in the factor
analysis (so that higher values reflect more naïve epistemic beliefs - which is consistent with the meaning of higher values
on the other items). Thematically, these items appear to reflect the belief that knowledge is simple and certain. We will
name this factor 'Belief in simple and certain knowledge.'

*Although it is not an issue during our current analysis, you should avoid retaining and interpreting factors with fewer than
three indicators at or near zero (and failing to meet your loading criterion). Three indicators is an absolute minimum number
you should accept with with respect to a factor (Hahs-Vaughn, 2016). Factors defined by fewer than three indicators tend to be
unreliable and are less likely to show up in future studies. All factors in the pattern matrix had 5-6 items that met the loading
criterion and was able to be used to name the factors.
The final matrix in our output contains the correlations among the Promax rotated factors. That is, these are correlations among
factors should we compute factor scores for the cases in our dataset and then compute Pearson's correlations between them.
Factor 1 exhibited a very small positive correlation (r=.144) with Factor 2. Factor 1 exhibited essentially a zero correlation with
Factor 3 (r=.009). Factor 2 and Factor 3, however, exhibited a moderate correlation (r=.308). After naming our factors, we might
conclude that the belief that knowledge comes from omniscient authority (Factor 2) is correlated moderately with the belief that
knowledge is simple and certain (Factor 3).
PAF with Varimax rotation

A different way of performing rotation is to force the factors to remain uncorrelated following rotation. This is referred to
as orthogonal rotation. A very popular type of orthogonal rotation is Varimax rotation.
All the pre-rotation results shown in the tables previously will be exactly the same in the current analysis. As such, I do not
reproduce them here. The only difference in output concerns the results following rotation of the factors.

Below is the table of rotated loadings. Since the factors remain uncorrelated after rotation, this matrix can be considered a
factor pattern matrix (under the assumption of factors correlated at 0) or structure matrix. In effect, the loadings are zero-
order correlations between each item and each factor. This is why there is only one loading matrix following rotation. As
we did previously, we adopt a minimum loading criterion for naming/defining the factors.
As you can see here, the items (with the exception of perhaps ce17, depending on how strict we want to be) previously
meeting the loading criterion of |.30| met the loading criterion following Varimax rotation. We will stick with the factor
names of (a) 'Belief in Fixed ability' and Quick Learning, (b) 'Belief in Omniscient Authority', and (c) Belief in Simple and
Certain Knowledge' based on the themes present among the items meeting the loading criterion.
 F1=fixed ability and F2-omniscient F3=Belief in simple
quick learning authority and certain
knowledge

1. Most things worth knowing are easy to understand. .028 .089 .446
2. What is true is a matter of opinion. (R) -.062 .010 .552
3. Students who learn things quickly are the most successful. .502 .179 .135
4. People should always obey the law .059 .638 .048
5. People’s intellectual potential is fixed at birth. .518 .102 -.002
8. Really smart students don’t have to work as hard to do well in school. .465 -.051 .094
9. If a person tries too hard to understand a problem, they will most likely end up being confused. .352 -.034 .144
11. The best ideas are often the most simple. .092 .086 .379
14. How well you do in school depends on how smart you are. .501 .113 .001
15. If you don’t learn something quickly you won’t ever learn it. .612 -.027 -.037
17. Things are simpler than most professors would have you believe. .118 .037 .296
20. If you don’t understand a chapter the first time through, going back over it won’t help. .442 -.090 -.150
22. The more you know about a topic, the more there is to know. (R) -.133 .064 .320
24. Smart people are born that way. .461 .124 .017
25. When someone in authority tells me what to do, I usually do it. -.059 .620 .192
26. People shouldn’t question authority. .134 .519 .095
27. Working on a problem with no quick solution is a waste of time. .548 .027 -.044
The table below contains the eigenvalues (Sum of Squared Loadings) and proportion of variance accounted for by each
rotated factor. The eigenvalues can computed as the sum of the squared loadings in the rotated factor matrix (above). The
proportion of variance accounted for is computed by dividing each eigenvalue by the total number of variables (17). The
proportion of variance accounted for by Factor 1 is 2.264/17 = .13 (or 13%). The proportion of variance accounted for by
Factor 2 is 1.165 = .069 (or 6.9%). The proportion of variance accounted for by Factor 3 is .960.17 = .056 (or 5.6%). The total
variance accounted for by the set of factors is .258 (or 25.8%). This is the same proportion of variance accounted for prior to
rotation.

Final note: Squaring and summing the loadings across factors will give you the extraction communalities for the items.
 References

Cerny, B. A., & Kaiser, H. F. (1977). A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation
matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12(1), 43–47.

Dziuban, C. D., & Shirkey, E. C. (1974). When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Psychological Bulletin,
31, 358-361.

Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. (2016). Applied multivariate statistical concepts. New York: Routledge.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
20, 141–151.

Leal-Soto, F., Ferrer-Urbina, R. (2017). Three-factor structure for Epistemic Belief Inventory: A cross-validation study. PLoS
ONE, 12 (3): e0173295. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173295

Pituch, K.A., & Stevens, J.P. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (6th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI). In B.
K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 261–
275). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Watkins, M. W. (2018). Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44, 219-246.

Watkins, M. W. (2021). A step-by-step guide to exploratory factor analysis with R and RStudio. New York: Routledge.