Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-tvc9f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T07:52:56.781Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of Pairwise Preference Data using Integrated B-Splines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Suzanne Winsberg  and
James O. Ramsay
Suzanne Winsberg*
Affiliation:
Université De Montréal
James O. Ramsay
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to S. Winsberg, Section Mesure et Évaluation, Faculté des Sciences de I’Éucation, Université de Montréal, Montréal, P. Québec, Canada. H3C 3T3.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pairwise preference data are represented as a monotone integral transformation of difference on the underlying stimulus-object or utility scale. The class of monotone transformations considered is that in which the kernel of the integral is a linear combination of B-splines. Two types of data are analyzed: binary and continuous. The parameters of the transformation and the underlying scale values or utilities are estimated by maximum likelihood with inequality constraints on the transformation parameters. Various hypothesis tests and interval estimates are developed. Examples of artificial and real data are presented.

Keywords

monotone transformation
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , June 1981 , pp. 171 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 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 investigation was supported in part by a research grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Canada.

References

References Notes

de Boor, C. & Rice, J. R. Least squares cubic spline approximation. I-Fixed knots; II-Variable knots (CSD TR 20 and 21), 1968, West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University.Google Scholar
Lord, F. Estimating item characteristic curves without knowledge of their mathematical form (RB-68-8), 1968, Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Steiger, J. H. & Lind, J. M. Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, 1980.Google Scholar

References

Akaike, H. A new look at the statistical model. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 1974, 19, 716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, G. Multidimensional preference scaling, 1976, The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. A., & Terry, M. E. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs. 1. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 1952, 39, 324–345.Google Scholar
Chernoff, H. On the distribution of the likelihood ratio. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1954, 25, 573–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, M. G. The numerical evaluation of B-splines. Journal of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, 1972, 10, 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, H. B. & Schoenberg, I. J. On spline distributions and their limits: The Polya distribution functions, Abstract 380t. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 1947, 53, 1114–1114.Google Scholar
Curry, H. B. & Schoenberg, I. J. On Polya frequency functions. IV: The fundamental spline functions and their limits. Journal d.Analyse Mathématique, 1966, 17, 71–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boor, C. On calculating with B-splines. Journal of Approximating Theory, 1972, 6, 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boor, C. A practical guide to splines, 1978, New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feder, P. I. On the distribution of the log-likelihood ratio test statistic when the true parameter is “near” the boundaries of the hypothesis regions. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1968, 39, 2044–2055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, L. R. Jr. Solution of a ranking problem from binary comparisons. Herbert Ellsworth Slaught Memorial Papers. American Mathematics Monthly, 1957, 64, 28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. Some empirical tests of the method of paired comparisons. Journal of General Psychology, 1931, 5, 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods, 2 ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.Google Scholar
Hohle, R. H. An empirical evaluation and comparison of two models for discriminability scales. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1966, 3, 174–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Analysis of factorial experiments by estimating monotone transformation of the data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 1965, 27, 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Leeuw, J., Young, F. W. & Takane, Y. Additive structures in qualitative data: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 1976, 41, 471–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D. Individual choice behavior, 1959, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mosteller, F. The mystery of the missing corpus. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. Monotonic weighted power transformations to additivity. Psychometrika, 1977, 42, 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. Confidence regions for multidimensional scaling analysis. Psychometrika, 1978, 43, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, G. Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 1978, 6, 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takane, Y., Young, F. W. & de Leeuw, J. An individual differences additive model: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 1980, 45, 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. A law of comparitive judgment. Psychological Review, 1927, 34, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winsberg, S. & Ramsay, J. O. Monotonic Transformations to Additivity using splines. Biometrika, 1980, 67, 669–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar