Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-sbzbt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T07:27:11.787Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Geometric Approach to Multivariate Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

C. J. Skinner
C. J. Skinner*
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. C. J. Skinner, Department of Social Statistics, University of Southampton, Southampton, S09 5NH, England.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Multivariate selection can be represented as a linear transformation in a geometric framework. This approach has led to considerable simplification in the study of the effects of selection on factor analysis. In this note this approach is extended to describe the effects of selection on regression analysis and to adjust for the effects of selection using the inverse of the linear transformation.

Keywords

geometricselectionregressionfactor analysis
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , September 1984 , pp. 383 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 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.)

References

Ahmavaara, Y. (1954). The mathematical theory of factorial invariance under selection. Psychometrika, 19, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T. W. (1957). Maximum likelihood estimates for a multivariate normal distribution when some observations are missing. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 52, 200–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birnbaum, Z. W., Paulson, E. and Andrews, F. C. (1950). On the effect of selection performed on some coordinates of a multidimensional population. Psychometrika, 15, 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, P. (1984). Geometry, Statistics, Probability: Variations on a Common Theme. The American Statistician, 38, 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demets, D. and Halperin, M. (1977). Estimation of a simple regression coefficient in samples arising from a subsampling procedure. Biometrics, 33, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempster, A. P. (1969). Elements of Continuous Multivariate Analysis, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Goldberger, A. S. (1981). Linear regression after selection. Journal of Econometrics, 15, 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, D., Smith, T. M. F., and Winter, P. D. (1980). Regression analysis of data from complex surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 143, 474–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawley, D. N. (1943). A note on Karl Pearson's selection formula. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 62, 28–30.Google Scholar
Little, R. J. A. (1982). Models for non-response in sample surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77, 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meredith, W. (1964). Rotation to achieve factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 29, 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, K. (1903). On the influence of natural selection on the variability and correlation of organs. Philosophical Transactions, 200, 1–66.Google Scholar
Skinner, C. J. (1982). Multivariate Analysis of Sample Survey Data. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Skinner, C. J. (1983). Multivariate prediction from selected samples. Biometrika, 70, 289–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, G. H. (1938). The influence of univariate selection on the factorial analysis of ability. British Journal of Psychology, 28, 451–459.Google Scholar
Thomson, G. H. (1951). The Factorial Analysis of Human Ability 5th Edition,, London: University London Press.Google Scholar