Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T14:37:30.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Monte Carlo Investigation of Recovery of Structure by Alscal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Robert C. MacCallum  and
Edwin T. Cornelius III
Robert C. MacCallum*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Edwin T. Cornelius III
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert C. MacCallum, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, 404C West 17th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43210.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A Monte Carlo study was carried out to investigate the ability of ALSCAL to recover true structure inherent in simulated proximity measures. The nature of the simulated data varied according to (a) number of stimuli, (b) number of individuals, (c) number of dimensions, and (d) level of random error. Four aspects of recovery were studied: (a) SSTRESS, (b) recovery of true distances, (c) recovery of stimulus dimensions, and (d) recovery of individual weights. Results indicated that all four measures were rather strongly affected by random error. Also, SSTRESS improved with fewer stimuli in more dimensions, but the other three indices behaved in the opposite fashion. Most importantly, it was found that the number of individuals, over the range studied, did not have a substantial effect on any of the four measures of recovery. Practical implications and suggestions for further research are discussed.

Keywords

three-way multidimensional scalingindividual differences modelsMonte Carlo research
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , September 1977 , pp. 401 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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 authors wish to thank Drs. Forrest W. Young, Paul D. Isaac and Thomas E. Nygren, who provided many helpful comments during this project.

References

Reference Notes

Kruskal, J. B. How to use MDSCAL, a program to do multidimensional scaling and multidimensional unfolding. Unpublished report, Bell Telephone Laboratories, 1968.Google Scholar
Bloxom, B. Individual differences in multidimensional scaling, 1968, Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. D. & Chang, J. J. Some methodological advances in INDSCAL. Paper presented at meetings of the Psychometric Society, Stanford University, August 1974.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D. & Chang, J. J. IDIOSCAL (Individual Differences in Orientation Scaling): A generalization of INDSCAL allowing IDIOsyncratic reference systems as well as an analytic approximation to INDSCAL. Paper presented at meetings of the Psychometric Society, Princeton, N. J., March 1972.Google Scholar
Harshman, R. A. PARAFAC2: Mathematical and technical notes. U.C.L.A., Working Papers in Phonetics 22, March 1972.Google Scholar
Jones, L. E. & Waddington, J. Sensitivity of INDSCAL to simulated individual differences in dimension usage patterns and judgmental error. Paper presented at the meetings of the Psychometric Society, Chicago, March 1973.Google Scholar
Young, F. W. Personal communication, 1976.Google Scholar

References

Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J. J. Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of Eckart-Young decomposition. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 283–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, H. S., & Jones, L. E. The effects of random error and subsampling of dimensions on recovery of configurations by nonmetric multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 1974, 39, 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, R. A., & Cliff, N. A Monte Carlo evaluation of interactive multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 1976, 41, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horan, C. B. Multidimensional scaling: Combining observations when individuals have different perceptual structures. Psychometrika, 1969, 34, 139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, P. D., & Poor, D. D. S. On the determination of appropriate dimensionality in data with error. Psychometrika, 1974, 39, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klahr, D. A Monte Carlo investigation of the statistical significance of Kruskal's nonmetric scaling procedure. Psychometrika, 1969, 34, 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lingoes, J. C. & Roskam, E. E. A mathematical and empirical analysis of two multidimensional scaling algorithms. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 1973, 38, (4, Pt. 2).Google Scholar
MacCallum, R. C. Effects on INDSCAL of non-orthogonal perceptions of object space dimensions. Psychometrika, 1976, 41, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCallum, R. C. Effects of conditionality on INDSCAL and ALSCAL weights. Psychometrika, in press.Google Scholar
McGee, V. E. Multidimensional scaling of N sets of similarity measures: A nonmetric individual differences approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1968, 3, 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, C. R. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A Monte Carlo study of the basic parameters. Psychometrika, 1972, 37, 323–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, I. A Monte Carlo evaluation of three nonmetric multidimensional scaling algorithms. Psychometrika, 1972, 37, 461–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, I., & Domoney, D. W. Single subject incomplete designs for nonmetric multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 1974, 39, 469–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenson, H. H., & Knoll, R. L. Goodness of fit for random rankings in Kruskal's nonmetric scaling procedure. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 122–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takane, Y., Young, F. W., & deLeeuw, J. Nonmetric individual differences multidimensional scaling: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 1977, 42, 7–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. R. Relations between multidimensional scaling and three-mode factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1972, 37, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. R., & Messick, S. An individual differences model for multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 1963, 28, 333–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagenaar, W. A., & Padmos, P. Quantitative interpretation of stress in Kruskal's multidimensional scaling technique. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1971, 24, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. W. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: Recovery of metric information. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 455–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar