Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-72crv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-13T10:23:29.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Component Models for Three-Way Data: An Alternating Least Squares Algorithm with Optimal Scaling Features

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Richard Sands  and
Forrest W. Young
Richard Sands
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Forrest W. Young*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
*
Reprints and programs may be obtained from Forrest Young, Psychometric Laboratory, Davie Hall 013-A, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A review of the existing techniques for the analysis of three-way data revealed that none were appropriate to the wide variety of data usually encountered in psychological research, and few were capable of both isolating common information and systematically describing individual differences. An alternating least squares algorithm was proposed to fit both an individual difference model and a replications component model to three-way data which may be defined at the nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio, or mixed measurement level; which may be discrete or continuous; and which may be unconditional, matrix conditional, or row conditional. This algorithm was evaluated by a Monte Carlo study. Recovery of the original information was excellent when the correct measurement characteristics were assumed. Furthermore, the algorithm was robust to the presence of random error. In addition, the algorithm was used to fit the individual difference model to a real, binary, subject conditional data set. The findings from this application were consistent with previous research in the area of implicit personality theory and uncovered interesting systematic individual differences in the perception of political figures and roles.

Keywords

individual differencesmeasurement level

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , March 1980 , pp. 39 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This paper is part of a Thesis performed by Richard Sands under the direction of Forrest Young at the L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Thanks are extended to Drs. Charles Schmidt and Andrea Sedlak for the use of their political role data set.

References

Reference Notes

Harshman, R. A. Foundations of the PARAFAC procedure: Models and conditions for an “explanatory” multimode factor analysis, 1970, Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Jennrich, R. A. A generalization of the multidimensional scaling model of Carroll and Chang, 1972, Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Young, F. W., de Leeuw, J., & Takane, Y. Quantifying qualitative data, 1978, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory.Google Scholar
Young, F. W., de Leeuw, J., & Takane, Y. Multidimensional scaling: Theory and method. Book in preparation, 1981.Google Scholar
Young, F. W. Conjoint scaling, 1973, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory.Google Scholar
Schönemann, P. H., Carter, F. S., & James, W. L. Contributions to subjective metrics scaling: I. COSPA, a fast method for fitting and testing Horan’s model and an empirical comparison with INDSCAL and ALSCAL, 1976, West Lafayette, Indiana: Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University.Google Scholar
EISPACK, an Eigensystem Subroutine. Argonne National Laboratory, Stanford University and University of Texas Center for Numerical Analysis, 1974.Google Scholar
Roskam, E. E. Data theory and algorithms for nonmetric scaling, 1969, Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Catholic University.Google Scholar
Sands, R. Component models for three-way data: ALSCOMP3, an alternating least squares algorithm with optimal scaling features. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1978.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, J. A normalized cone regression approach to alternating least squares algorithms, 1977, The Netherlands: Department of Data Theory, University of Leiden.Google Scholar

References

Abelson, R. P. Scales derived by considerations of variance components in multi-way tables. In Gulliksen, H., & Messick, S. J. (Eds.), Psychological scaling: Theory and applications. New York: Wiley. 1960, 169–186.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multi-trait multi-method matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. D. Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. In Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K., & Nerlove, S. (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications in the behavioral sciences, 1972, New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J. J. Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. B. The three basic factor-analysis research designs: Their interrelations and derivatives. Psychological Bulletin, 1952, 49, 499–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Leeuw, J., Young, F. W., & Takane, Y. Additive structure in qualitative data: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 1976, 41, 471–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckart, C., & Young, G. The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank. Psychometrika, 1936, 3, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttman, L. What lies ahead of factor analysis. Education and Psychological Measurement, 1958, 18, 497–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israelsson, A. Three-way (or second order) component analysis. Bulletin of International Statistical Institute, 1969, 43, 29–47.Google Scholar
Jones, L. E., & Young, F. W. The structure of a social environment: A longitudinal individual differences scaling of an intact group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 108–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G. Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 1971, 36, 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroonenberg, P., & de Leeuw, J. Principal components analysis of three mode data by means of alternating least squares algorithms. Psychometrika, 1980, 45, 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B., & Carroll, J. D. Geometric models and badness-of-fit functions. In Krishnaiah, P. R. (Eds.), Multivariate analysis, (Vol. 2), 1969, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lingoes, J. C., & Schonemann, P. H. Alternative measures of fit for the Schonemann-Carroll Matrix Fitting Algorithm. Psychometrika, 1974, 39, 423–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, J. Three-mode factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 64, 442–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Messick, S., & Kogan, N. Personality consistencies in judgment: Dimensions of role constructs. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1966, 1, 165–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulaik, S. A. The foundations of factor analysis, 1972, New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaning, 1957, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Pederson, D. M. The measurement of individual differences in perceived personality-trait relationships and their relation to certain determinants. Journal of Social Psychology, 1965, 65, 233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, S., & Olshan, K. Evaluative and descriptive aspects in personality perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 619–626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schönemann, P. H. An algebraic solution for a class of subjective metric models. Psychometrika, 1972, 37, 441–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. Metric structures in ordinal data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1966, 3, 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, R. Individual differences in perceived trait relationships as a function of dimensional salience. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1972, 7, 109–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherman, R., & Ross, L. B. Liberal-conservatism and dimensional salience in the perception of political figures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 23, 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takane, Y., Young, F. W., & de Leeuw, J. Nonmetric individual differences multidimensional scaling: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 1977, 42, 7–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takane, Y., Young, F. W., & de Leeuw, J. The principal components of mixed measurement level multivariate data: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 1978, 43, 279–281.Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R. Implications of factor analysis of three way matrices for measurement of change. In Harris, C. W. (Eds.), Problems in measuring change. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1963, 122–137.Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R The extension of factor analysis to three dimensional matrices. In Gulliksen, H., & Frederiksen, N. (Eds.), Contributions to mathematical psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1964, 110–119.Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R. Some mathematical notes on three mode factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1966, 31, 279–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walters, H. A., & Jackson, D. N. Group and individual regularities in trait inference: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1966, 1, 145–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wish, M., Deutsch, M., & Biener, L. Differences in perceived similarity of nations. In Romney, A. K., Shepard, R. N., & Nerlove, S. B. (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications to the behavioral sciences (Vol. 2). New York: Seminar Press. 1972, 290–314.Google Scholar
Wish, M., Deutsch, M., & Kaplan, S. J. Perceived dimensions of interpersonal relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. W. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: Recovery of metric information. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 455–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. W. A model for polynomial conjoint analysis algorithms. In Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K., & Nerlove, S. (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications in the behavioral sciences, 1972, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Young, F. W., de Leeuw, J., & Takane, Y. Regression with qualitative and quantitative variables: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 1976, 41, 505–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. W., & Null, C. H. Multidimensional scaling of nominal data: The recovery of metric information with ALSCAL. Psychometrika, 1978, 43, 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar