Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T03:30:37.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Four Simultaneous Component Models for the Analysis of Multivariate Time Series from More than One Subject to Model Intraindividual and Interindividual Differences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Marieke E. Timmerman  and
Henk A. L. Kiers
Marieke E. Timmerman*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
Henk A. L. Kiers
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Marieke E. Timmerman, Heymans Institute of Psychology, DPMG, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, THE NETHERLANDS. E-Mail: m.e.timmerman@ppsw.rug.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A class of four simultaneous component models for the exploratory analysis of multivariate time series collected from more than one subject simultaneously is discussed. In each of the models, the multivariate time series of each subject is decomposed into a few series of component scores and a loading matrix. The component scores series reveal the latent data structure in the course of time. The interpretation of the components is based on the loading matrix. The simultaneous component models model not only intraindividual variability, but interindividual variability as well. The four models can be ordered hierarchically from weakly to severely constrained, thus allowing for big to small interindividual differences in the model. The use of the models is illustrated by an empirical example.

Keywords

three-way analysisexploratory longitudinal analysis
Type
Articles
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , March 2003 , pp. 105 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research has been made possible by funding from the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research (NWO) to the first author. The authors are obliged to Tom A.B. Snijders, Jos M.F. ten Berge and three anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier version of this paper, and to Kim Shifren for providing us with her data set, which was collected at Syracuse University.

References

Anderson, T.W. (1963). The use of factor analysis in the statistical analysis of multiple time series. Psychometrika, 28, 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijleveld, C.C.J.H. (1989). Exploratory linear dynamic systems analysis. Leiden, Netherlands: DSWO PressGoogle Scholar
Bijleveld, C.C.J.H., Bijleveld, F.D. (1997). A comparison of the applicability of two approaches to linear dynamic systems analyze for N subjects. Kwantitatieve Methoden, 55, 37–57Google Scholar
Bro, R., Andersson, C.A., Kiers, H.A.L. (1999). PARAFAC2-Part II. Modeling chromatographic data with retention time shifts. Journal of Chemometrics, 13, 295–3093.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bro, R., Smilde, A.K. (2003). Centering and scaling in component analysis. Journal of Chemometrics, 17, 16–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J.D., Chang, J.J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via anN-way generalization of Eckart-Young decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 283–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R.B. (1952). Factor analysis. New York, NY: HarperGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R.B. (1963). The structuring of change by P-technique and incremental R-technique. In Harris, C.W. (Eds.), Problems in measuring change. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin PressGoogle Scholar
Cliff, N. (1966). Orthogonal rotation to congruence. Psychometrika, 31, 33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, R., Watson, M. (1981). A one-factor multivariate time series model of metropolitan wage rates. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 774–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harshman, R.A. (1972). Determination and proof of minimum uniqueness conditions for PARAFAC1. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 22, 111–117Google Scholar
Harshman, R.A., Lundy, M.E. (1984). The PARAFAC model for three-way factor analysis and multidimensional scaling. In Law, H.G., Conrad, C.W. Jr., Hattie, J.A., McDonald, R.P. (Eds.), Research methods for multimode data analysis (pp. 122–215). New York, NY: PraegerGoogle Scholar
Harshman, R.A., Lundy, M.E. (1984). Data preprocessing and the extended PARAFAC model. In Law, H.G., Conrad, C.W. Jr., Hattie, J.A., McDonald, R.P. (Eds.), Research methods for multimode data analysis (pp. 216–284). New York: PraegerGoogle Scholar
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J. (2001). The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction. New York, NY: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Immink, W. (1986). Parameter estimation in Markov models and dynamic factor analysis. Utrecht, Netherlands: University of UtrechtGoogle Scholar
Jones, C.J., Nesselroade, J.R. (1990). Multivariate, replicated, single-subject, repeated measures designs and P-technique factor analysis: A review of intraindividual change studies. Experimental Aging Research, 16, 171–183Google ScholarPubMed
Kaiser, H.F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiers, H.A.L., ten Berge, J.M.F. (1994). Hierarchical relations between methods for simultaneous component analysis and a technique for rotation to a simple simultaneous structure. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 47, 109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiers, H.A.L., ten Berge, J.M.F., Bro, R. (1999). PARAFAC2-Part 1. A direct fitting algorithm for the PARAFAC2 model. Journal of Chemometrics, 13, 275–2943.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, R.J.A., Rubin, D.B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York, NY: WileyGoogle Scholar
Louwerse, D.J., Smilde, A.K., Kiers, H.A.L. (1999). Cross-validation of multiway component models. Journal of Chemometrics, 13, 491–5103.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenaar, P.M. (1985). A dynamic factor model for the analysis of multivariate time series. Psychometrika, 50, 181–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesselroade, J.R., Molenaar, P.C.M. (1999). Pooling lagged covariances structures based on short, multivariate time series for dynamic factor analysis. In Hoyle, R.H. (Eds.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 223–250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Niesing, J. (1997). Simultaneous component and factor analysis methods for two or more groups: A comparative study. Leiden, Netherlands: DSWO PressGoogle Scholar
Shifren, K., Hooker, K., Wood, P., Nesselroade, J.R. (1997). Structure and variation of mood in individuals with Parkinson's disease: A dynamic factor analysis. Psychology and aging, 12, 328–339CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Timmerman, M.E. (2001). Component analysis of multisubject multivariate longitudinal data. Groningen, Netherlands: University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
Timmerman, M.E., Kiers, H.A.L. (2002). Three-way component analysis with smoothness constraints. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 3, 447–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L.R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies. Washington, DC: Department of the ArmyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Buuren, S. (1990). Optimal scaling of time series. Leiden, Netherlands: DSWO PressGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive and negative affect: Their relation to health complaints, perceived stress, and daily activities. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54, 1020–1030CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed