Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-h2dfl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-04T06:30:22.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Two-Stage Algorithm for Assessing Violations of Additivity Via Axiomatic and Numerical Conjoint Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Thomas E. Nygren
Thomas E. Nygren*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Thomas E. Nygren, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, 404C West 17th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An algorithm for assessing additivity conjunctively via both axiomatic conjoint analysis and numerical conjoint scaling is described. The algorithm first assesses the degree of individual differences among sets of rankings of stimuli, and subsequently examines either individual or averaged data for violations of axioms necessary for an additive model. The axioms are examined at a more detailed level than has been previously done. Violations of the axioms are broken down into different types. Finally, a nonmetric scaling of the data can be done based on either or both of two different badness-of-fit scaling measures. The advantages of combining all of these features into one algorithm for improving the diagnostic value of axiomatic conjoint measurement in evaluating additivity are discussed.

Keywords

additivityaxiom testsaxiom violationsadditive conjoint measurementnumerical conjoint scalingnonmetric scaling

Information

Type
Computational Psychometrics
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , September 1986 , pp. 483 - 491
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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

References

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, 471–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, D. R., Barron, F. H. (1979). Axiomatic and numerical conjoint measurement: An evaluation of diagnostic efficacy. Psychometrika, 44, 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, J. O., Wallsten, T. S. (1974). A user's manual for CONJOINT: A computer program for evaluating certain conjoint measurement axioms, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. M. (1973). Pairwise nonmetric multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 38, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement, Vol. 1, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Krantz, D. H., Tversky, A. (1971). Conjoint measurement analysis of composition rules in psychology. Psychological Review, 78, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. (1965). Analysis of factorial experiments by estimating monotone transformations of the data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 27 (Series B), 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, G. (1977). A note on Arbuckle and Larimer, “The Number of Two-way Tables Satisfying Certain Additivity Axioms.”. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 14, 292–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, C. A., McClelland, G. B. (1984). Scaling distortion in numerical conjoint measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nygren, T. E. (1985). An examination of conditional violations of axioms for additive conjoint measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nygren, T. E. (1985). Axiomatic and numeric conjoint measurement: A comparison of three methods for obtaining subjective workload (SWAT) rankings. Proceedings of the IEEE 1985 NAECON Conference, 2, 878–883.Google Scholar
Reid, G. B., Shingledecker, C. L., & Eggemeier, F. T. (1981). Applications of conjoint measurement to workload scale development. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting, 522–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, G. B., Shingledecker, C. L., Nygren, T. E., & Eggemeier, F. T. (1981). Development of multidimensional subjective measures of workload. Proceedings of the 1981 IEEE International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, 403–406.Google Scholar
Ullrich, J. R., Cummins, D. E. (1973). PCJM: A program for conjoint measurement analysis of polynomial composition rules. Behavioral Science, 18, 226–227.Google Scholar