Component Analysis with Different Sets of Constraints on Different Dimensions | Psychometrika | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

Many of the “classical” multivariate data analysis and multidimensional scaling techniques call for approximations by lower dimensional configurations. A model is proposed, in which different sets of linear constraints are imposed on different dimensions in component analysis and “classical” multidimensional scaling frameworks. A simple, efficient, and monotonically convergent algorithm is presented for fitting the model to the data by least squares. The basic algorithm is extended to cover across-dimension constraints imposed in addition to the dimensionwise constraints, and to the case of a symmetric data matrix. Examples are given to demonstrate the use of the method.

References

Andersen, E. B. (1980). Discrete statistical models with social science applications, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Anderson, T. W. (1951). Estimating linear restrictions on regression coefficients for multivariate normal distribution. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22, 327–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Carroll, J. D. (1972). Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. In Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K., Nerlove, S. B. (Eds.), Multidimensional scalling, Vol. 1 (pp. 105–155). New York: Seminar 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

Coombs, C. H. (1964). A theory of data, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Delbeke, L. (1978). Enkele analyses op voorkeuroordelen voor gezinssamenstellingen [Some analyses of preference judgments for family compositions]. Centrum voor Mathematische Psychologie en Psychologische Methodologie, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar

de Leeuw, J. (1984). The Gifi-system of nonlinear multivariate analysis. In Diday, E., Jambu, M., Lebart, L., Pagès, J., Thomassone, R. (Eds.), Data analysis and informatics III (pp. 415–424). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

de Leeuw, J., Young, F. W., Takane, Y. (1976). Additive structure in qualitative data: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 41, 471–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the Jackknife. Annals of Statistics, 7, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gabriel, K. R. (1971). The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometqrika, 58, 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Greenacre, M. J. (1993). Correspondence analysis in practice, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Heiser, W. J. (1981). Unfolding analysis of proximity data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden.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 Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heiser, W. J., Meulamn, J. (1983). Constrained multidimensional scaling, including confirmation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34, 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jöreskog, K. G. (1970). A general method for analysis of covariance structures. Biometrika, 57, 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiefer, J., Wolfowitz, J. (1956). Consistency of the maximum likelihood estimator in the presence of infinitely many incidental parameters. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 27, 887–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiers, H. A. L., Krijnen, W. P. (1991). An efficient algorithm for PARAFAC of three-way data with large numbers of observation units. Psychometrika, 56, 147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiers, H. A. L., Kroonenberg, P. M., ten Berge, J. M. F. (1992). An efficient algorithm for TUCKALS 3 on data with large numbers of observation units. Psychometrika, 57, 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lebart, L., Morineau, A., Warwick, K. (1984). Multivariate descriptive statistical analysis, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Lohmöller, J. (1989). Latent variable path modelling with partial least squares, Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meulman, J. (1986). A distance approach to nonlinear multivariate analysis, Leiden: DSWO Press.Google Scholar

Meulman, J., Heiser, W. et al. (1984). Constrained multidimensional scaling: More directions than dimensions. In Havranek, T. et al. (Eds.), COMPSTAT 84 (pp. 137–142). Vienna: Physica Verlag.Google Scholar

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

Ramsay, J. O. (1980). Joint analysis of direct ratings, pairwise preferences and dissimilarities. Psychometrika, 45, 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rao, C. R. (1964). The use and interpretation of principal component analysis in applied research. Sankhya A, 26, 329–358.Google Scholar

Rao, C. R. (1980). Matrix approximations and reduction of dimensionality in multivariate statistical analysis. In Krishnaiah, P. R. (Eds.), Multivariate analysis (pp. 3–22). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Takane, Y. (1978). A maximum likelihood method for nonmetric multidimensional scaling: I. The case in which all empirical pairwise orderings are independent theory and evaluations. Japanese Psychological Research, 20, 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Takane, Y. (1981). Multidimensional successive categories scaling: A maximum likelihood method. Psychometrika, 46, 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Takane, Y., Shibayama, T. (1991). Principal component analysis with external information on both subjects and variables. Psychometrika, 56, 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Takane, Y., Yanai, H., Mayekawa, S. (1991). Relationships among several methods of linearly constrained correspondence analysis. Psychometrika, 56, 667–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Takane, Y., Young, F. W., de Leeuw, J. (1980). An individual differences additive model: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 45, 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berge, J. M. F. (1986). Rotation to perfect congruence and the cross-validation of component weights across populations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 41–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Berge, J. M. F., Kiers, H. A. L. (1991). Some clarifications of the CANDECOMP algorithm applied to INDSCAL. Psychometrika, 56, 317–326.CrossRefGoogle 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. (1990). Interpreting canonical correlation analysis through biplots of structural correlations and weights. Psychometrika, 55, 519–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scalling, New York: Wiley.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: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 53, 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Lans, I. A. (1992). Nonlinear multivariate analysis for multivariate preference data, Leiden: DSWO Press.Google Scholar

van der Leeden, R. (1990). Reduced rank regression with structured residuals, Leiden, The Netherlands: DSWO Press.Google Scholar

Velicer, W. F., Jackson, D. N. (1990). Component analysis versus common factor analysis: Some issues in selecting an appropriate procedure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Velu, R. P. (1991). Reduced rank models with two sets of regressors. Applied Statistics, 40, 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wold, H. (1982). Soft modelling: The basic design and some extensions. Systems under indirect observations, II (pp. 1–54). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Young, G., Householder, A. S. (1938). Discussion of a set of points in terms of their mutual distances. Psychometrika, 3, 19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar