Brief reviews of the published factorial studies of the 16PF suggest that the evidence is divided regarding the existence of the 16 primary factors. There is considerable convergence at the secondary level, however. In the present investigation factor analyses of 128 items, 32 parcels, 16 scales, and 16 change scores derived from the 16PF-E using a heterogeneous sample of rehabilitation clients provided strong confirmation of the eight 16PF secondaries and, by implication, support for the existence of the 16 primaries. It is concluded that all available evidence, when considered from an objective point of view, does not justify the negative conclusions reached by the more severe critics of the 16PF.