Thus, further investigation is necessary to identify the confounding factors of item 10.
Primary factor analysis of item pool pointed to a 7-factor solution, which would explain 60.4% of variance.
Primary factor analysis of item pool 1 pointed to a 5-factor solution.
Instead, the empirical approach, which also uses statistical analysis (e.g., confirmatory factor analysis of item responses), is the preferred model to form homogenous item groupings [ 26].
Except the loading factor of "Peaceful" item, others are statistically significant.
Both our study and Matsuda and Gobel's study (2004) using Japanese samples showed a two-factor structure (their one factor of 21 items; the other factor of 12 items), but with different constituent items for each factor.
The correlations (factor loadings) of items in the final three factor model are reported in Table 2.
The first or second factor's items did not match with those of Cheng et al. (1999) using Taiwanese participants (one factor of nine items: 1, 2, 9, 13, 14, 18, 24, 27, and 31; the other factor of seven items: 4, 15, 19, 21, 25, 29, and 30).
Constructs with the factor loadings of items above.55 and not higher than.30 on the other factors were considered valid (Kline 2014; Nunnally et al. 1967).
Principal components analysis (PCA) examined the underlying factor structure of items on the OM-6, and Cronbach's α measured the internal consistency of items on each factor.
