In the social sciences, accurately identifying the dimensionality of measurement scales is crucial for understanding latent constructs such as anxiety, happiness, and self-efficacy. This study presents a rigorous comparison between Parallel Analysis (PA) and Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA) for assessing the dimensionality of scales, particularly focusing on ordinal data. Through an extensive simulation study, we evaluated the effectiveness of these methods under various conditions, including varying sample size, number of factors and their association, patterns of loading magnitudes, and symmetrical or skewed item distributions with assumed underlying normality or non-normality. Results show that the performance of each method varies across different scenarios, depending on the context. EGA consistently outperforms PA in correctly identifying the number of factors, particularly in complex scenarios characterized by more than a single factor, high inter-factor correlations and low to medium primary loadings. However, for datasets with simpler and stronger factor structures, specifically those with a single factor, high primary loadings, low cross-loadings, and low to moderate interfactor correlations, PA is suggested as the method of choice. Skewed item distributions with assumed underlying normality or non-normality were found to noticeably impact the performance of both methods, particularly in complex scenarios. The results provide valuable insights for researchers utilizing these methods in scale development and validation, ensuring that measurement instruments accurately reflect theoretical constructs.