Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:49:04.350Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Reformulation of the General Euclidean Model for the External Analysis of Preference Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Mark L. Davison
Mark L. Davison*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Mark L. Davison, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, 178 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses least squares methods for fitting a reformulation of the general Euclidean model for the external analysis of preference data. The reformulated subject weights refer to a common set of reference vectors for all subjects and hence are comparable across subjects. If the rotation of the stimulus space is fixed, the subject weight estimates in the model are uniquely determined. Weight estimates can be guaranteed nonnegative. While the reformulation is a metric model for single stimulus data, the paper briefly discusses extensions to nonmetric, pairwise, and logistic models. The reformulated model is less general than Carroll's earlier formulation.

Keywords

multidmensional scalingregressionpreference data
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 305 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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 author is grateful to Christopher J. Nachtsheim for his helpful suggestions.

References

Bard, J. (1974). Nonlinear parameter estimation, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bechtel, G. G., Tucker, L. R., & Chang, W. A. (1971). A scalar product model for the multidimensional scaling of choice. Psychometrika, 36, 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beebe-Center, J. G., Rogers, M. L., Atkinson, W. H., & O'Connell, D. H. (1959). Sweetness and saltiness of compound solutions of sucrose and NaCl as a function of concentration of solutes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 231–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, R. D., & Jones, L. V. (1968). The measurement and prediction of judgment and choice, San Francisco, CA: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Buck, P. A., & Weckel, K. G. (1956). Study of consumer preferences of salt and sugar levels in canned green beans. Food Technology, 10, 421–423.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D. (1972). Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. In Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K., & Nerlove, S. B. (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications in the behavioral sciences. Vol. II: Theory (pp. 105–155). New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J. J. (March, 1972). IDIOSCAL (Individual Differences Orientation Scaling): A generalization of INDSCAL allowing idiosyncratic reference systems as well as an analytic approximation to INDSCAL. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Chang, J. J., & Carroll, J. D. (1972). How to use PREFMAP and PREFMAP2—Programs which relate preference data to multidimensional scaling solutions, Murray Hill, NJ: Bell Laboratories.Google Scholar
Coombs, C. H. (1964). A theory of data, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cooper, L. G., & Nakanishi, M. (1983). Two logit models for external analyses of preferences. Psychometrika, 48, 607–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, M. L. (1976). Fitting and testing Carroll's weighted unfolding model for preferences. Psychometrika, 41, 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, M. L. (1976). External analysis of preferences. Psychometrika, 41, 557–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, M. L. (1980). DACAR: A FORTRAN program for fitting linear and distance models of preference. Applied Psychological Movement, 4, 419–419.Google Scholar
Davison, M. L. (1983). Multidimensional Scaling, New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Hartley, H. O. (1961). The modified Gauss-Newton method for fitting of nonlinear regression functions. Technometrics, 3, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamen, J. M., & Pilgrim, F. J. (1959). Interactions of taste qualities. American Psychologist, 14.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilgrim, F. J. (1961). Interactions of suprathreshold taste stimuli. In Kare, M. R. & Halpern, B. P. (Eds.), Physiological and behavioral aspects of taste (pp. 66–78). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, V., & Shocker, A. D. (1973). Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences. Psychometrika, 38, 337–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. R. (1960). Intra-individual and inter-individual multidimensionality. In Gulliksen, H. & Messick, S. (Eds.), Psychological scaling: Theory and applications (pp. 155–167). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R. (1972). Relations between multidimensional scaling and three-mode factor analysis. Psychometrika, 37, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar