The authors of each of the 10 chapters of "Statistical Methodology " in the REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 1963, were praised for mini mizing the use of mathematical symbolism, mathematical argument, and criticism in comparison with description (Brown, 1964). We have at tempted a similar treatment of the development of factor analytic meth odology in the period 1963-66 in hopes of reaching and informing the widest possible audience. However, since a review totally lacking in criticism and evaluation is little more than a search of the literature, we have striven to obtain an end product which is a hybrid of a catalogue and a critical review. The reader cannot hope to gain a comprehensive view of the develop ment of factor analysis over the last three years from this review. This is even too much to hope for from any one of several reviews of factor analytic methodology which have appeared recently (Harris, 1964; Merri-
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Glass et al. (1966) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: