Traditional parallel analysis (T-PA) estimates the number of factors by sequentially comparing sample eigenvalues with eigenvalues for randomly generated data. Revised parallel analysis (R-PA) sequentially compares the "k"th eigenvalue for sample data to the "k"th eigenvalue for generated data sets, conditioned on"k"- 1 underlying factors. T-PA and R-PA are conceptualized as stepwise hypothesis-testing procedures and, thus, are alternatives to sequential likelihood ratio test (LRT) methods. We assessed the accuracy of T-PA, R-PA, and LRT methods using a Monte Carlo approach. Although no method was uniformly more accurate across all 180 conditions, the PA approaches outperformed LRT methods overall. Relative to T-PA, R-PA tended to perform better within the framework of hypothesis testing and to evidence greater accuracy in conditions with higher factor loadings.