Piecewise Method of Reciprocal Averages for Dual Scaling of Multiple-Choice Data | Psychometrika | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

The proposed method handles the classical method of reciprocal averages (MRA) in a piecewise (item-by-item) mode, whereby one can deal with smaller matrices and attain faster convergence to a solution than the MRA. A new concept “the principle of constant proportionality” is introduced to provide an interesting interpretation for scaling multiple-choice data á la Guttman. A small example is presented for discussion of the technique.

References

Bock, R. D. Methods and applications of optimal scaling, 1960, Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Psychometric Laboratory.Google Scholar

de Leeuw, J. Canonical analysis of categorical data, 1973, The Netherlands: University of Leiden.Google Scholar

Nishisato, S. Optimal scaling as applied to different forms of data, 1976, Toronto: Department of Measurement and Evaluation, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar

Fisher, R. A. The precision of discriminant functions. Annals of Eugenics, 1940, 10, 422–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, L. An introduction to numerical linear algebra, 1964, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gabriel, K. R. The biplot graphical display of matrices with applications to principal component analysis. Biometrika, 1971, 58, 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guttman, L. The quantification of a class of attributes: A theory and method of scale construction. In Horst, P. (Eds.), The prediction of personal adjustment. New York: Social Science Research Council. 1941, 319–348.Google Scholar

Guttman, L. The principal components of scale analysis. In Stouffer, S. A., Guttman, L., Suchman, E. A., Lazarsfeld, P. F., Star, S. A., Clausen, J. A. (Eds.), Measurement and prediction, 1950, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Hill, M. O. Correspondence analysis: A neglected multivariate method. Applied Statistics, 1974, 23, 340–354.10.2307/2347127CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hirschfeld, H. O. A connection between correlation and contingency. Cambridge Philosophical Society Proceedings, 1935, 31, 520–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horst, P. Measuring complex attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 1935, 6, 369–374.10.1080/00224545.1935.9919744CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lingoes, J. C. Simultaneous linear regression: An IBM 7090 program for analyzing metric/nonmetric or linear/nonlinear data. Behavioral Science, 1964, 9, 87–88.Google Scholar

Lord, F. M. Some relations between Guttman's principal components of scale analysis and other psychometric theory. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maung, K. Measurement of association in contingency table with special reference to the pigmentation of hair and eye colours of Scottish school children. Annals of Eugenics, 1941, 11, 189–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McDonald, R. P. A unified treatment of the weighting problem. Psychometrika, 1968, 33, 351–381.10.1007/BF02289330CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McDonald, R. P., Torii, Y., & Nishisato, S. Some results on proper eigenvalues and eigenvectors with applications to scaling. Psychometrika, 1979, 44, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mosier, C. I. Machine methods in scaling by reciprocal averages. Endicath, New York: International Business Corporation. 1946, 35–39.Google Scholar

Nishisato, S. Dual (optimal) scaling and its history. Mathematical Sciences, 1979, 190, 76–83 (in Japanese)Google Scholar

Nishisato, S. Analysis of categorical data: Dual scaling and its applications, 1980, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.10.3138/9781487577995CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Richardson, M., & Kuder, G. F. Making a rating scale that measures. Personnel Journal, 1933, 12, 36–40.Google Scholar