Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:53:24.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Alternating Least Squares Algorithm for Fitting the Two- and Three-Way Dedicom Model and the Idioscal Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Henk A. L. Kiers
Henk A. L. Kiers*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Henk A. L. Kiers, Department of Psychology, Grote Markt 31/32, 9712 HV Groningen, THE NETHERLANDS.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The DEDICOM model is a model for representing asymmetric relations among a set of objects by means of a set of coordinates for the objects on a limited number of dimensions. The present paper offers an alternating least squares algorithm for fitting the DEDICOM model. The model can be generalized to represent any number of sets of relations among the same set of objects. An algorithm for fitting this three-way DEDICOM model is provided as well. Based on the algorithm for the three-way DEDICOM model an algorithm is developed for fitting the IDIOSCAL model in the least squares sense.

Keywords

DEDICOMthree mode data analysisIDIOSCAL
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , September 1989 , pp. 515 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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.)

Footnotes

The author is obliged to Jos ten Berge and Richard Harshman.

References

Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J. J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J. J. (1972, March). IDIOSCAL (Individual Differences In Orientation SCALing): A generalization of INDSCAL allowing IDIOsyncratic reference systems as well as an analytic approximation to INDSCAL. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychometric Society, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Wish, M. (1974). Models and methods for three-way multidimensional scaling. In Krantz, D. H., Atkinson, R. C., Luce, R. D., & Suppes, P. (Eds.), Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology (pp. 57–105). San Francisco: Freeman & Company.Google Scholar
De Leeuw, J., & Pruzansky, S. (1978). A new computational method to fit the weighted euclidean distance model. Psychometrika, 43, 479–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harshman, R. A. (1978, August). Models for analysis of asymmetrical relationships among N objects or stimuli. Paper presented at the First Joint Meeting of the Psychometric Society and the Society of Mathematical Psychology, Hamilton, Ontario.Google Scholar
Harshman, R. A., Green, P. E., Wind, Y., & Lundy, M. E. (1982). A model for the analysis of asymmetric data in marketing research. Marketing Science, 1, 205–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harshman, R. A., & Kiers, H. A. L. (1987, June). Algorithms for DEDICOM analysis of asymmetric data. Paper presented at the European Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Enschede.Google Scholar
Harshman, R. A., & Lundy, M. E. (1984). The PARAFAC model for three-way factor analysis and multidimensional scaling. In Law, H. G., Snyder, C. W. Jr., Hattie, J. A., & McDonald, R. P. (Eds.), Research methods for multimode data analysis (pp. 122–215). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Keller, J. B. (1962). Factorization of matrices by least squares. Biometrika, 49, 239–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroonenberg, P. M., & de Leeuw, J. (1980). Principal component analysis of three-mode data by means of alternating least squares algorithms. Psychometrika, 45, 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Berge, J. M. F., & Nevels, K. (1977). A general solution to Mosier's oblique procrustes problem. Psychometrika, 42, 593–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar