Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T16:22:48.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Joint Analysis of Direct Ratings, Pairwise Preferences, and Dissimilarities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

J. O. Ramsay
J. O. Ramsay*
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to James O. Ramsay, Department of Psychology, Stewart Biological Sciences Building, 1205 McGregor Avenue, Montreal, Quebec, CANADA H3A 1B1.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In studies involving judgments of similarity or dissimilarity, a variety of other variables may also be measured. Examples might be direct ratings of the stimuli, pairwise preference judgments, and physical measurements of the stimuli with respect to various properties. In such cases, there are important advantages to joint analyses of the dissimilarity and collateral variables. A variety of models are described for relating these and algorithms described for fitting these to data. A number of hypothesis tests are developed and an example offered.

Keywords

multidimensional scalingpaired comparisons
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 1980 , pp. 149 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 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

The research reported here was supported by grant number APA 320 to the author by the National Research Council of Canada.

References

Reference Notes

System/360 Scientific Subroutine Package, Version III. White Plains, N. Y.: International Business Machines Corporation, 1970.Google Scholar
Takane, Y. Multidimensional successive categories scaling: A maximum likelihood method. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Psychometric Society and the European Mathematical Psychology Group, Uppsala, Sweden, 1978.Google Scholar
Bookstein, A. Personal communication, 1978.Google Scholar

References

Bechtel, G. Multidimensional preference scaling, 1976, The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloxom, B. Constrained multidimensional scaling in N spaces. Psychometrika, 1978, 43, 397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. D. Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. In Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K., and Nerlove, S. B. (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications in the behavioral sciences, Vol. 1. New York: Seminar Press. 1972, 105–153.Google Scholar
Duder, S. & Aronson, J. Values in the admission process: An application of multidimensional scaling. Canadian Journal of Social Work Education, 1978, 4, 56–75.Google Scholar
O'Hare, D. Individual differences in perceived similarity and preference for visual art: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 1976, 20, 445–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, J. O., Case, B. Attitude measurement and the linear model. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74, 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. Maximum likelihood estimation in multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 1977, 42, 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. Confidence regions for multidimensional scaling analysis. Psychometrika, 1978, 43, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. MULTISCALE: Four programs for multidimensional scaling by the method of maximum likelihood, 1978, Chicago: National Educational Resources, Inc..Google Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. Some small sample results for maximum likelihood estimation in multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 1980, 45, 141–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, D. M., Bassili, J. N., & Aboud, F. E. Dimensions of ethnic identity: An example from Quebec. Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 89, 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar