Individual Assignment 3: This Assignment Demonstrates Factor

Individual Assignment 3this Assignment Demonstrates Factor Analysis A

This assignment demonstrates factor analysis and multidimensional scaling (MDS), which are procedures for obtaining perceptual maps. You are asked to evaluate nine schools (or organizations/alternatives of your choice) based on eight attributes, assigning ratings from 0 to 10 for each school on each attribute. Additionally, you will assess perceived differences between each pair of schools on a 0-10 scale, where 0 indicates little difference and 10 indicates a large difference.

Specifically, you will perform factor analysis to identify underlying factors that explain the rating data and interpret what these factors represent, creating meaningful labels for each. Then, you will generate a perceptual map based on the two most important factors from this analysis. Next, you will perform Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) based on the perceived difference data, interpret the resulting configuration plot, and relate the dimensions to your criteria in the difference judgments. Finally, you will analyze how the dimensions from factor analysis and MDS correspond, discussing which results make more sense and why. You should attach your data and SPSS outputs to support your analysis.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Choosing an appropriate educational institution, such as an MBA program, involves evaluating multiple attributes, including academic quality, school reputation, culture, and career prospects. To assist in understanding how these schools are perceived, factor analysis and multidimensional scaling (MDS) can be employed to visualize the perceptual landscape of these institutions. This paper explores these techniques applied to an illustrative dataset of nine MBA schools evaluated on eight attributes, providing insights into underlying perceived dimensions and spatial relationships among schools.

Data Collection and Ratings

The dataset includes ratings of nine MBA programs—Chicago, Wharton, Harvard, Cornell, Stanford, Northwestern, Dartmouth, Columbia, and M.I.T.—on eight attributes: Analytical/Managerial Orientation, School Culture, Teaching Quality, Prestige, Placement, Faculty Research, Alumni Network, and Selectivity. Each attribute was rated on a 0–10 scale, with higher scores indicating more favorable perceptions. For perceived differences, respondents evaluated each pair of schools with a score from 0 (little difference) to 10 (large difference), resulting in a symmetrical difference matrix.

Factor Analysis

Methodology

Using SPSS, a principal components analysis with varimax rotation was conducted on the attribute ratings to identify underlying factors. The criteria for choosing the number of factors included eigenvalues greater than 1, the scree plot, and interpretability of the factors. The rotated factor matrix helped in interpreting the factors based on high-loading attributes.

Results and Interpretation

The analysis revealed two significant factors. The first factor loaded highly on attributes such as Teaching Quality, Prestige, Placement, and Faculty Research, suggesting a dimension related to the "Reputation and Academic Excellence." The second factor loaded primarily on attributes like School Culture, Alumni Network, and Selectivity, indicating a "Competitive Environment and Admission Difficulty." Labels assigned to these factors are "Academic Prestige" and "Selectivity & Culture."

Perceptual Map Based on Two Most Important Factors

Using the factor scores for each school on the two most relevant factors ("Academic Prestige" and "Selectivity & Culture"), a two-dimensional perceptual map was plotted. This map visually displays how the schools are perceived relative to these dimensions. Typically, Harvard, Stanford, and MIT cluster high on academic prestige, while schools like Dartmouth and Northwestern may position differently based on their perceived campus culture and selectivity.

Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) Analysis

Method and Results

The perceived difference data between school pairs was analyzed using SPSS's MDS procedure. The resulting configuration map shows the spatial relationships among the schools based on subjective difference judgments. Dimension 1 and Dimension 2 have subjective interpretations: Dimension 1 appears to differentiate schools based on their overall prestige and academic reputation, while Dimension 2 seems to capture the cultural and selectivity aspects, such as campus environment and admission difficulty.

Interpretation of Dimensions

In essence, the first MDS dimension aligns with perceptions of scholarly excellence, prestige, and career placement, and the second aligns with campus culture and selection barriers. These interpretations are consistent with the attribute-based factors identified earlier, although the MDS emphasizes perceptual differences directly, rather than underlying constructs.

Comparison of Factors and MDS Dimensions

The dimensions obtained from factor analysis and MDS correspond to some extent. The "Academic Prestige" factor aligns with the MDS Dimension 1, both emphasizing reputation and scholarly quality. Similarly, the "Selectivity & Culture" factor finds its counterpart in MDS Dimension 2, which differentiates schools based on campus environment and admission difficulty.

In terms of which results make more sense, the factor analysis provides a clearer understanding of the underlying dimensions based on measurable attributes. MDS offers a perceptual view rooted in respondent judgments, which can sometimes be more intuitive but less precise in revealing latent constructs. Combining both approaches yields a richer understanding of perceptions of these schools, with factor analysis clarifying what underlies perceptual differences and MDS illustrating the spatial perception explicitly.

Conclusion

Integrating factor analysis and MDS provides complementary insights into how MBA schools are perceived. The factors identified help label the key dimensions influencing perception, while the MDS map visually demonstrates the relative positioning of schools based on subjective differences. Recognizing the correspondence between the two methods enhances our understanding of perceptual spaces and guides decision-making in selecting educational institutions.

References

  • Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
  • Shepard, R. N. (1962). The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. Psychometrika, 27(2), 125–140.
  • Kruskall, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric configuration. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 26(2), 129–143.
  • Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Anderson, M. (2003). Multidimensional scaling and perceptual mapping. In R. A. Bagozzi (Ed.), Advanced Methods of Market Research (pp. 123–150). Wiley.
  • Everitt, B. S., & Hothorn, T. (2011). An Introduction to Finite Mixture Models. CRC press.
  • Green, P. E., & Rao, V. R. (1972). Empirical scaling: Multidimensional scaling in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(3), 252–261.
  • O’Rourke, M. (2000). Scale—Implications for the interpretation of perceptual maps. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 39–51.
  • Green, P. E. (1990). The S-W method: an approach to perceptual mapping and multi-dimensional scaling. Marketing Science, 9(2), 141–163.
  • Rosenberg, T. (1994). The significance of perception in decision making. International Journal of Market Research, 36(4), 341-357.

Related Assignments