Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-4ws75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T21:55:53.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing a Unidimensional, Qualitative Unfolding Model for Attitudinal or Developmental 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 addressed to Mark L, Davison, Department of Social, Psychological, and Philosophical Foundations of Education, 330 Burton Hall, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Assuming that subject responses rank order stimuli by preference, statistical methods are presented for testing the hypothesis that responses conform to a unidimensional, qualitative unfolding model and to an a priori stimulus ordering. The model postulates that persons and stimulus variables are ordered along a single continuum and that subjects most prefer stimuli nearest their own position. The underlying continuum need not form an interval scale of the stimulus attribute. The general assumptions of the test for the unfolding model make it suitable for the analysis of structure in attitude responses, preference data, and developmental stage data.

Keywords

chi squareindependencecontingency tablespsychological scaling

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , June 1979 , pp. 179 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 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 research was supported by a grant from the U.S. Public Health Service (Grant No. 1-R01-MH27861-01) to the University of Minnesota. I wish to thank Sanford Weisberg for his helpful suggestions. I also wish to thank Karen Kitchener and Patricia King for letting me use their data.

References

Bennett, J. F. & Hays, W. L. Multidimensional unfolding: Determining the dimensionality of ranked preference data. Psychometrika, 1960, 25, 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, Y. M. M. & Fienberg, S. E. Incomplete two-dimensional contingency tables. Biometrics, 1969, 25, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, J. D. 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. 1). New York: Seminar Press. 1972, 105–155.Google Scholar
Coombs, C. H. Psychological scaling without a unit of measurement. Psychological Review, 1950, 57, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coombs, C. H. A theory of data, 1964, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Coombs, C. H. & Smith, J. E. K. On the detection of structure in attitudes and developmental processes. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darroch, J. N. & Ratcliff, D. Generalized iterative scaling for loglinear models. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1972, 43, 1470–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, M. L. Fitting and testing carroll's weighted unfolding model for preferences. Psychometrika, 1976, 41, 233–247. (a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, M. L. External analyses of preference models. Psychometrika, 1976, 41, 557–558. (b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, M. L. On a metric, unidimensional unfolding model for attitudinal and developmental data. Psychometrika, 1977, 42, 523–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, D. & Coombs, C. H. Some applications of unfolding theory to fertility analysis. Emerging techniques in population research, 1963, New York: Milbank Memorial Fund.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. The analysis of cross-classified data: Independence, quasi-independence and interactions in contingency tables with or without missing entries. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1968, 63, 1091–1131.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. Some multiplicative models for the analysis of cross-classified data. Proceedings of the sixth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, 1972, 1, 649–696.Google Scholar
Guttman, L. A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, 1968, 33, 469–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubert, L. Problems in seriation using a subject by item response matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 976–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, P. M. The development of reflective judgment and formal operational thought in adolescents and young adults, 1977, University of Minnesota: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Kitchener, K. Intellectual development in late adolescents and young adults: Reflective judgment and verbal reasoning, 1977, University of Minnesota: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 1–27. (a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 115–129. (b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larntz, K. & Weisberg, S. Multiplicative models for dyad formation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1976, 71, 455–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leik, R. K. & Matthews, M. A scale for developmental processes. American Sociological Review, 1968, 33, 62–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGee, V. Multidimensional scaling of N sets of similarity measures: A nonmetric individual differences approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1968, 3, 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantel, N. Models for complex contingency tables and polychotomous dosage response curves. Biometrics, 1966, 22, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perry, W. G. Jr. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years, 1970, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Schönemann, P. H. On metric multidimensional unfolding. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. I. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 125–140. (a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. II. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 219–246. (b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherif, M. & Sherif, C. W. The own categories procedure in attitude research. In Fishbein, M.(Eds.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement, 1967, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Sherif, M. & Sherif, C. W.Social psychology. Harper & Row, 1969.Google Scholar
Wohlwill, J. The study of behavioral development, 1973, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Young, F. W. & Torgerson, W. S. TORSCA: A FORTRAN IV program for Shepard-Kruskal multidimensional scaling analysis. Behavioral Science, 1967, 12, 498–498.Google Scholar