Hi,
I recently ran a non-rotated behavioral PLS with a single contrast. It is my first time running a non-rotated PLS, so I'm not sure if the values I am getting are reasonable. The percent crossblock covariance explained by the LV is 100%, which seems unlikely. When I ran a regular behavioral PLS on the two conditions of interest, the main LV accounted for 85.65% of the covariance. I would appreciate any help in interpreting and reporting the covariance explained by the non-rotated PLS.
Thanks,
Kayleigh
this is expected because with one contrast there is only one source of covariance to consider, so it must account for 100%. That metric is really only relevant when you have more than one contrast and are comparing it relative to one another or to a comparable analysis for another group. Be mindful that this is NOT variance accounted for.
Thank you for this quick response. Is there another metric that I should use when reporting the amount of variance the LV accounts for?
Thank you for this quick response. Is there another metric that I should use when reporting the amount of variance the LV accounts for?
There really isn't a metric for variance accounted for per se. You could calculate something like Cohen's d but that's not part of the code.
OK. I do report the percent crossblock covariance for a regular mean-centered Task PLS -- is this more similar to a percent variance explained or should I avoid reporting this metric in general?
OK. I do report the percent crossblock covariance for a regular mean-centered Task PLS -- is this more similar to a percent variance explained or should I avoid reporting this metric in general?
You can report the percent cross-block, but also report the associated singular value as that can be compared between analyses of the same data matrix
Baycrest is an academic health sciences centre fully affiliated with the University of Toronto
Privacy Statement - Disclaimer - © 1989-2024 BAYCREST HEALTH SCIENCE. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED