The Professional Counselor | Volume 13, Issue 3 200 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results from the initial EFA using principal axis factoring with the 45 OQ items produced a solution that explained 55.564% of the total variance. After multiple iterations of item deletions, we concluded with a three-factor solution. We present the internal reliability estimates of two three-factor solutions: (a) a 16-item three-factor solution—the most parsimonious—and (b) an 18-item three-factor solution, including all critical items in Table 3. We present the first three-factor solution because it was derived using stringent criteria for creating the most parsimonious solution (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Henson & Roberts, 2006; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019), whereas the second three-factor solution included conceptual judgment determining the inclusion of the critical items from the original OQ-45.2. Table 3 Internal Consistency Estimates Total Symptom Distress Interpersonal Relations Social Role Performance Original OQ-45 .943 .932 .802 .683 Total Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 16-Item Model .894 .864 .840 .710 18-Item Model .896 .857 .840 .700 Three-Factor Solution Results from the parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) indicated an initial four-factor solution. Through multiple iterations (n = 9) of examining factor loadings, removing items one at a time, and reexamining parallel analysis after each deletion, our results demonstrated that a three-factor solution was the most parsimonious. We removed a total of 29 items because of low communalities (< .5), low factor loadings (< .4), and substantive cross-loadings (> .3 between two factor loadings; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019). Before accepting the removal of these items, we added each back to the model to determine its impact on the overall model. No items improved the model; therefore, we accepted the deletion of the 29 items. The final three-factor solution included 16 items with 57.99% of total variance explained, which indicates near acceptable variance in social science research, with 60% being acceptable (Hair et al., 2010). Factor 1 (seven items) explained 38.98% of the total variance; Factor 2 (six items) explained 11.37% of the total variance; and Factor 3 (three items) explained 7.64% of the total variance. Three-Factor Solution With Critical Items After finalizing the model, we added Item 8 (“I have thoughts of ending my life”) and Item 44 (“I feel angry enough at work/school to do something I might regret”) into the final model for purposes of clinical utility. Both items resulted in low factor loading (< .4). Item 8 correlated with other items on Factor 3, and Item 44 correlated with other items on Factor 1. This final 18-item three-factor solution reduced the variance explained by the items on the factors by 3.45%, indicating a questionable fit for social sciences (54.54%; Hair et al., 2010). Factor 1 (eight items) explained 36.83% of the total variance; Factor 2 (six items) explained 10.82% of the total variance; and Factor 3 (four items) explained 6.90% of the total variance. Internal consistency estimates are presented in Table 3 for all three models: (a) the original OQ-45.2 (α = .943); (b) the 16-item, three-factor solution (α = .894); and (c) the 18-item, threefactor solution (α = .896).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU5MTM1