The Score | October 2025

What’s in a name? A primer for applying content analysis principles in factor interpretation

Demonstrating the identification of patterns, themes, and meanings when interpreting factor analysis results

Cite This Article in APA Style

Maric, D., Fore, G. A., Sorge, B. H. W. F. A., & Angstmann, J. L. (2025, October 1). What’s in a name? A primer for applying content analysis principles in factor interpretation. The Score. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-5/publications/score/2025/10/content-analysis-principles

Comment:

By Danka Maric, MA, Grant A. Fore, PhD, Brandon H. Sorge, PhD, Francesca A. Williamson, PhD, and Julia L. Angstmann, PhD

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:
Danka Maric, M.A.
STEM Education Innovation and Research Institute
Indiana University
755 W. Michigan, UL1123
Indianapolis, 46202
Email Danka Maric, MA

In 1971, Paul Meehl and his colleagues describe a general uneasiness felt by many around factor analysis. They argue that the cause is the largely subjective nature of factor interpretation. That is, when it comes to factor interpretation and naming, it is “an after-the-fact, ad hoc enterprise” (Meehl et al., 1971). At the time, there were no satisfactory criteria for evaluating factor interpretation.

Today, measurement is a critical issue, and adequate psychometric evidence is imperative to obtaining valid and reliable research results (DeVellis, 2017). There is a plethora of resources guiding researchers on factor retention, loading strength, and rotation options (e.g., DeVellis, 2017; Flora & Flake, 2017; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014; Yong & Pearce, 2013). Aside from the Recapture-Item Technique suggested by Meehl and colleagues (1971), there is still a dearth of satisfactory guidance on factor interpretation. Indeed, factor naming is described as “more of an ‘art’” and as having no rules “except to give names that best represent the variables within the factors (Yong & Pearce, 2013).” Although we respect this method, we wish to offer an alternative approach for those that want something more systematic.

We suggest a mixed-methods approach, applying content analysis principles to the factor naming process. Content analysis is an analytical technique that involves detailed and systematic examination and interpretation of material with the goal of identifying patterns, themes, and meanings (Lune & Berg, 2017). It allows one to examine words, phrases, concepts, sentence structure, and semantics while considering theoretical frameworks and context. To illustrate, we describe our factor naming process for the Civic-minded Graduate (CMG; Steinberg et al., 2011) scale below.

Table 1 

Factor	Item
Interdependence of Self and Others	I want to dedicate my career to improving society.  I would say that the main purpose of work is to improve society through my career.  I intend to be involved in volunteer service after I graduate.  I feel a deep conviction in my career goals to achieve purposes that are beyond my own self-interest.  I believe that I have a responsibility to use the knowledge that I have gained to serve others.  I have a sense of who I am, which includes a sincere desire to be of service to others.  I believe that having an impact on community problems is within my reach.
Valuing Civic Duty	I intend to stay current with the local and national news.    I stay up to date on the current political issues in the community.    It is important for me to vote and be politically involved.    I listen to others and understand their perspective on controversial issues.    I am a good listener, even when people’s opinions are different from mine.
Applying Interpersonal Knowledge	I listen to others and understand their perspective on controversial issues.  I am a good listener, even when people’s opinions are different from mine.  Other students who know me well would describe me as a person who can discuss controversial social issues with civility and respect.  When members of my group disagree on how to solve a problem, I like to try to build consensus.
Macro-awareness to Intervene	I am prepared to write a letter to the newspaper or community leaders about a community issue.   I am aware of a number of community issues that need to be addressed.    I am convinced that social problems are not too complex for me to help solve.
Micro-awareness to Intervene	I know a lot about opportunities to become involved in the community.    I am able to plan or help implement an initiative that improves the community.    I have the professional knowledge and skills that I need to help address community issues.    I am very familiar with clubs and organizations that encourage and support community involvement for college students.

As part of a place-based experiential learning intervention study (Angstmann et al., 2019), we conducted a factor analysis of the CMG scale and found a 25-item, 5 factor structure (Maric et al., in press). Table 1 below displays the factors and items were retained in our structure. Initially, we (authors 1, 3, and 4) met and decided on preliminary factor names based on thematic interpretations and theoretical considerations. At this point, we decided that these names could be improved and wanted to be more systematic in our interpretations. Thus, using standard principles from content analysis (see Lune and Berg, 2017: 184), we examined items for sentence structure, coded them inductively, and then sorted them based on thematic categories. We (authors 1, 2, and 3) independently considered each factor and their items and met to discuss our interpretations. Through deliberation, we each explained our reasoning behind our interpretations according to perceived patterns and theoretical considerations until consensus was reached. Theoretical frameworks included process philosophy (Whitehead, 1978), postcolonial theories of subjectivity (Nyamnjoh, 2017), and interdependent self-construal (see Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Table 2 below displays factor names, key words/phrases, and the themes that were extracted.

Table 2

Factor Names, Key Words/Phrases Identified, and Themes Extracted

Factor Name	Key Words/Phrases	Themes
Interdependence of Self and Others	“I”; “careers”; “purpose of work”; “conviction”; “responsibility”; “sincere desire”; “improving society”; “serv[ing] others”; “complex”	Connection to others and community; serving one’s community
Valuing Civic Duty	“intend”; “vote”; “involved”; “stay”; “I” or “me”; “important”	Involvement with current events and politics
Applying Interpersonal Knowledge	I”; “listen”; “discuss…with civility”; “build consensus”	Applying interpersonal skills such as consensus building and listening to others
Macro-Awareness to Intervene	“prepared”; “aware”; “convinced”; “I am”; “write”; “help solve”; “address”; issues”; “problems”	Knowledge of issues, engagement, and intervention relative to larger societal structures
Micro-Awareness to Intervene	“I”; “community”; “community issues”; “plan”; “encourage”; “support”; “involved”	Knowledge of issues, engagement, and intervention relative to local community structures

For all the factors, we paid close attention to sentence structure, including verbs and subjects. We noticed that in all the items, that the subject was the survey-taking student (denoted by the words “I” or “me”). We considered how these verbs related to the subject and what that meant. For example, in Factor 1, the items’ verbs articulate the intentionality, desire, feelings, sense of identity, and belief of the subject (“I”). In some items, one’s work, career, and specialized knowledge is directed toward others and society. The “I” is connecting their identity, desires, values, and work toward external relationships consolidated within the notions of society and community, leading to the name “Interdependence of Self and Others.”

In Factor 2, we noted that each question focused on intent to be either aware or involved in current local and national news and politics. Coupled with an expression of perceived importance in one item, we interpreted this as implying a valuing of some kind. We determined that these items were each articulating a relationship between one’s valuing of and intent to stay informed and engaged with larger structures of civil society (e.g., news and politics) and named this factor “Valuing Civic Duty”. In Factor 3, we found that there was significant emphasis on interpersonal relationality in diverse contexts, where unified solutions to complex or controversial issues were to be fashioned. Given that the items were all referring to interpersonal skills but also emphasized the application of those skills, we agreed upon “Applying Interpersonal Knowledge”.

The last two factors were admittedly difficult to differentiate. In Factor 4 the verbs were each preceded by an auxiliary verb articulating a state of being (“am”) that referred to a subject (“I”) – the student, connecting the person to an action. Each item also contained “issues” or “problems” in the predicates. Thus, these items were each articulating a relationship between one’s awareness and know-how relative to engagement with larger structures of civil society (e.g., newspapers, leaders), as well as problems and issues that are multiple and “complex.” Thus, we agreed upon “Macro-awareness to intervene. In Factor 5, the subject (“I”) was consistently in relation to the sentences’ objects, such as “community” and “community issues.” Like Factor 4, the verbs in these items referred to actions, this time taken in relation to community, which is on a more micro-level scale. Thus, we settled on the factor name: “Building Micro-Awareness to Intervene.”

Through this technique, we were able to align our factor names more closely with Dewey’s ethical and democratic theories (e.g., Dewey, 1976) underpinning the scales items. Previous iterations of the CMG’s structure (i.e., Steinberg et al., 2011) were not so explicitly aligned with these theories, despite their importance to the items. This also brough the CMG closer to recent conceptualizations of civic-minded education (Kreber, 2016). This paper serves as a primer for others to take a more systematic approach to interpreting and naming factors and a foundation for future work to build upon. Above all, this work can encourage researchers to engage in interdisciplinary collaboration, finding creative ways to incorporate and apply quantitative and qualitative methods into their work.

Authors

Danka Maric, MA¹
Grant A. Fore, PhD¹
STEM Education Innovation and Research Institute, Indiana University, Indianapolis 

Brandon H. Sorge, PhD²
O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Indianapolis 

Francesca A. Williamson, PhD³
University of Michigan School of Medicine 

Julia L. Angstmann, PhD⁴
Office of Sustainability, Butler University

References

DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage publications.

Dewey, J. (1976). The middle works, 1899-1924 (Vol. 13). SIU press.

Kreber, C. (2016). Educating for civic-mindedness: Nurturing authentic professional identities through transformative higher education. Routledge.

Lune, H., & Berg, B. L. (2017). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson.

Maric, D., Fore, G.A., Sorge, B.H., Williamson, F.A., & Angstmann, J.L. (in press). Validity and reliability of the civic-minded graduate scale in a place-based experiential learning context: Integrating ethical and self-construal theory. The Good Society. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Cultural and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.

Meehl, P. E., Lykken, D. T., Schofield, W., & Tellegen, A. (1971). Recaptured-Item Technique (RIT): A method for reducing somewhat the subjective element in factor naming. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 5(3), 171-190.

Nyamnjoh, B. (2017). Drinking from the Cosmic Gourd: how Amos Tutuola can change our minds. African Books Collective.

Steinberg, K. S., Hatcher, J. A., & Bringle, R. G. (2011). Civic-minded graduate: A north star. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 17(1), 19-33.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.

Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and reality: Corrected edition. NY: Macmillan.

Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology, 9(2), 79-94.