Relationships Among Several Methods of Linearly Constrained Correspondence Analysis | Psychometrika | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

This paper shows essential equivalences among several methods of linearly constrained correspondence analysis. They include Fisher's method of additive scoring, Hayashi's second type of quantification method, ter Braak's canonical correspondence analysis, Nishisato's type of quantification method, ter Braak's canonical correspondence analysis, Nishisato's ANOVA of categorical data, correspondence analysis of manipulated contingency tables, Böckenholt and Böckenholt's least squares canonical analysis with linear constraints, and van der Heijden and Meijerink's zero average restrictions. These methods fall into one of two classes of methods corresponding to two alternative ways of imposing linear constraints, the reparametrization method and the null space method. A connection between the two is established through Khatri's lemma.

References

Böckenholt, U., Böckenholt, I. (1990). Canonical analysis of contingency tables with linear constraints. Psychometrika, 55, 633–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carroll, J. D. (1973). Models and algorithms for multidimensional scaling, conjoint measurement and related techniques. In Green, P. E., Wind, Y. (Eds.), Multiattribute decisions in marketing: A measurement approach (pp. 299–387). New York: Dryden Press.Google Scholar

Carroll, J. D., Pruzansky, S., Kruskal, J. B. (1980). CANDELINC: A general approach to multidimensional analysis of many-way arrays with linear constraints on parameters. Psychometrika, 45, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cazes, P., Chessel, D., Doledec, S. (1988). L'analyse des correspondances internes d'un tableau partitionné: Son usage en hydrobiologie [Internal correspondence analysis of a partitioned table: Its use in hydrobiology]. Revue des Statistique Appliquée, 36, 39–54.Google Scholar

Chessel, D., Lebreton, J. D., Yoccoz, N. (1987). Propriétés de l'analyse canonique des correspondances: Une illustration en hydrobiologie [Properties of canonical correspondence analysis: An illustration in hydrobiology.]. Revue des Statistique Appliquée, 35, 55–72.Google Scholar

D'Ambra, L., Lauro, N. (1989). Nonsymmetrical analysis of three-way contingency tables. In Coppi, R., Bolasco, S. (Eds.), Multiway data analysis (pp. 301–315). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

de Leeuw, J. (1984). Fixed rank matrix approximation with singular weights matrices. Computational Statistics Quarterly, 1, 3–12.Google Scholar

DeSarbo, W. S., Carroll, J. D., Lehmann, D. R., O'Shaughnessy, J. (1982). Three-way multivariate conjoint analysis. Marketing Science, 1, 323–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DeSarbo, W. S., Rao, V. R. (1984). GENFOLD2: A set of models and algorithms for the GENeral UnFOLDing analysis of preference/dominance data. Journal of Classification, 1, 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fisher, R. A. (1936). The use of multiple measurement in taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics, 7, 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fisher, R. A. (1948). Statistical methods for research workers 10th ed., Enlarged edition,, London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar

Gilula, Z., Haberman, S. J. (1988). The analysis of contingency tables by restricted canonical and restricted association models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 760–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenacre, M. J. (1984). Theory and applications of correspondence analysis, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Hayashi, C. (1950). On the quantification of qualitative data from the mathematico-statistical point of view. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 2, 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hayashi, C. (1952). On the prediction of phenomena from qualitative data and the quantification of qualitative data from the mathematico-statistical point of view. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 3, 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heiser, W. J. (1981). Unfolding analysis of proximity data, Leiden, The Netherlands: DSWO Press.Google Scholar

Heiser, W. J. (1987). Joint ordination of species and sites: The unfolding technique. In Legendre, P., Legendre, L. (Eds.), Developments in numerical ecology (pp. 189–221). Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-70880-0_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Israëls, A. (1987). Eigenvalue techniques for qualitative data, Leiden, The Netherlands: DSWO Press.Google Scholar

Johnson, P. O. (1950). The quantification of qualitative data in discriminant analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 45, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Khatri, C. G. (1966). A note on a MANOVA model applied to problems in growth curves. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 18, 75–86.10.1007/BF02869518CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Khatri, C. G. (1988). Some properties of BLUE in a linear model and canonical correlations associated with linear transformations, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Center for Multivariate Analysis.Google Scholar

Lebreton, J. D., Chessel, D., Prodon, R., Yoccoz, N. (1988). L'analyse des relations espèces-milieu par l'analyse canonique des correspondences, I. Variables de milieu quantitatives [Analysis of speciesenvironment relations by canonical correspondence analysis, I. Quantitative environment variables.]. Acta Oecologica, 9, 53–67.Google Scholar

Leclerc, A. (1975). L'analyse des correspondence sur juxtaposition de tableaux de contingence [Correspondence analysis of juxtaposed contingency tables]. Revue de Statistique Appliquée, 23, 5–16.Google Scholar

Maxwell, A. E. (1961). Canonical variate analysis when the variables are dichotomous. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 21, 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nishisato, S. (1971). Analysis of variance through optimal scaling. In Carter, C. S., Dwivedi, D. W., Felligi, I. P., Fraser, D. A. S., McGregor, J. R., Sprott, D. A. (Eds.), Statistics '71 Canada, Proceedings of the first Canadian conference in applied statistics (pp. 306–316). Montreal: Sir George Williams University Press.Google Scholar

Nishisato, S. (1972). Analysis of variance of categorical data through selective scaling. Abstract Guide, 20th International Congress of Psychology, Tokyo, p. 279.Google Scholar

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

Ramsay, J. O. (1982). Some statistical approaches to multidimensional scaling. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 145, 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scheffé, H. (1959). The analysis of variance, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Schmoyer, R. L. (1984). Everyday application of the cell means model. The American Statistician, 38, 49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Seber, G. A. F. (1977). Linear regression analysis, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Takane, Y. (1980). Analysis of categorizing behavior by a quantification method. Behaviormetrika, 8, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Takane, Y. (1987). Analysis of contingency tables by ideal point discriminant analysis. Psychometrika, 52, 493–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Takane, Y. (1990). Constrained principal component analysis and its applications. Paper submitted for publication.Google Scholar

Takane, Y., Shibayama, T. (1991). Principal component analysis with external information on both subjects and variables. Psychometrika, 56, 97–120.10.1007/BF02294589CrossRefGoogle Scholar

ter Braak, C. J. F. (1986). Canonical correspondence analysis: A new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology, 67, 1167–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

ter Braak, C. J. F. (1988). Partial canonical correspondence analysis. In Bock, H. H. (Eds.), Classification and related methods of data analysis (pp. 551–558). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Timm, N. H. (1975). Multivariate analysis with applications in education and psychology, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar

van den Wollenberg, A. L. (1977). Redundancy analysis: An alternative for canonical correlation analysis. Psychometrika, 42, 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Burg, E., de Leeuw, J., Verdegaal, R. (1988). Homogeneity analysis with k sets of variables: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 53, 177–197.10.1007/BF02294131CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Heijden, P. G. M., de Falguerolles, A., de Leeuw, J. (1989). A combined approach to contingency table analysis using correspondence analysis and log-linear analysis. Applied Statistics, 38, 249–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Heijden, P. G. M., de Leeuw, J. (1985). Correspondence analysis used complementary to loglinear analysis. Psychometrika, 50, 429–447.10.1007/BF02296262CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Heijden, P. G. M., Meijerink, F. (1989). Generalized correspondence analysis of multi-way contingency tables and multi-way (super-) indicator matrices. In Coppi, R., Bolasco, S. (Eds.), Multiway data analysis (pp. 185–202). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

van der Heijden, P. G. M., Worsley, K. J. (1988). Comment on “Correspondence analysis used complementary to loglinear analysis”. Psychometrika, 53, 287–291.10.1007/BF02294139CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yanai, H. (1986). Some generalizations of correspondence analysis in terms of projection operators. In Diday, E., Escoufier, Y., Lebart, L., Pagés, J., Schectman, Y., Tomassone, R. (Eds.), Data analysis and informatics IV (pp. 193–207). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Yanai, H. (1988). Partial correspondence analysis and its properties. In Hayashi, C., Jambu, M., Diday, E., Ohsumi, N. (Eds.), Recent developments in clustering and data analysis (pp. 259–266). Boston: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-215485-0.50025-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yanai, H. (1990). Some generalized forms of least squares _g_-inverse, minimum norm _g_-inverse and Moore-Penrose inverse matrices. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 10, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yanai, H., & Takane, Y. (1990). Canonical correlation analysis with linear constraints. Paper submitted for publication.Google Scholar

Yanai, H., Takeuchi, K. (1983). Projection matrices, generalized inverse and singular value decomposition, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press (in Japanese)Google Scholar