Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T12:20:23.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Graphical representations and Odds Ratios in a Distance-Association Model for the Analysis of Cross-Classified Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Mark de Rooij  and
Willem J. Heiser
Mark de Rooij*
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Willem J. Heiser
Affiliation:
Leiden University
*
Requests for reprints should be addressed to Mark de Rooij, Department of Psychology, Leiden University, PO Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although RC(M)-association models have become a generally useful tool for the analysis of cross-classified data, the graphical representation resulting from such an analysis can at times be misleading. The relationships present between row category points and column category points cannot be interpreted by inter point distances but only through projection. In order to avoid incorrect interpretation by a distance rule, joint plots should be made that either represent the row categories or the column categories as vectors. In contrast, the present study proposes models in which the distances between row and column points can be interpreted directly, with a large (small) distance corresponding to a small (large) value for the association. The models provide expressions for the odds ratios in terms of distances, which is a feature that makes the proposed models attractive reparametrizations to the usual RC(M)-parametrization. Comparisons to existing data analysis techniques plus an overview of related models and their connections are also provided.

Keywords

Euclidean distancesmaximum likelihood estimationlog-linear modellingmultidimensional scalingmultidimensional unfolding
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 99 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 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 authors are indebted to the reviewers, Ab Mooijaart, Patrick Groenen, and Lawrence Hubert for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) is gratefully acknowledged for funding this project. This research was conducted while the first author was supported by a grant of the Foundation for Behavioral and Educational Sciences of this organization (575-30-006). This paper was completed while the second author was research fellow at the Netherlands Institute in the Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIAS) in Wassenaar, The Netherlands.

References

Andersen, E.B. (1980). Discrete statistical models with social science applications. North-Holland: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Becker, M.P. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation of the RC(M) association model. Applied statistics, 39, 152–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, M.P., & Clogg, C.C. (1989). Analysis of sets of two-way contingency tables using association models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 142–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, I., & Groenen, P. (1997). Modern multidimensional scaling; theory and applications. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R.A., & Terry, M.E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete designs I. the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39, 324–345.Google Scholar
Breiman, L., Friedman, J.H., Olshen, R.A., & Stone, C.J. (1984). Classification and regression trees. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Carroll, J.D., Green, P.E., & Schaffer, C.M. (1986). Interpoint distance comparison in correspondence analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J.D., Green, P.E., & Schaffer, C.M. (1987). Comparing interpoint distance in correspondence analysis: A clarification.. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 445–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J.D., Green, P.E., & Schaffer, C.M. (1989). Reply to Greenacre’s commentary on the Carroll-Green-Schaffer scaling of two-way correspondence analysis solutions. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 366–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caussinus, H. (1965). Contribution á l’analyse statistique des tableaux de corrélation [contributions to the statistical analysis of correlation matrices]. Annals of the faculty of Science, University of Toulouse, 29, 715–720.Google Scholar
Clogg, C.C., Eliason, S.R., & Wahl, R.J. (1990). Labor-market experiences and labor force outcomes. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1536–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C.H. (1964). A theory of data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
De Leeuw, J., & Heiser, W.J. (1977). Convergence of correction-matrix algorithms for multidimensional scaling. In Lingoes, J.C., Roskam, E.E., & Borg, I. (Eds.), Geometric representations of relational data (pp. 735–752). Ann Arbor, MI: Mathesis Press.Google Scholar
De Rooij, M. (2001). Distance models for the analysis of transition frequencies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Leiden UniversityCrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Rooij, M., & Heiser, W.J. (2002). A distance representation of the quasi-symmetry model and related distance models. In Yanai, H., Okada, A., Shigemasu, K., Kano, Y., & Meulman, J.J. (Eds.), New developments on psychometrics: proceedings of the international meeting of the psychometric society (pp. 487–494). Tokyo: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Defays, D. (1978). A short note on a method of seriation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 3, 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fienberg, S.E., & Larntz, K. (1976). Loglinear representation of paired and multiple comparison models. Biometrika, 63, 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gifi, A. (1990). Nonlinear multivariate analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gilula, Z., & Haberman, S.J. (1986). Canonical analysis of contingency tables by maximum likelihood. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 780–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L.A. (1971). The analysis of multidimensional contingency tables: stepwise procedures and direct estimation methods for building models for multiple classifications. Technometrics, 13, 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L.A. (1972). Some multiplicative models for the analysis of cross-classified data. Sixth Berkely Symposium, 1, 649–696.Google Scholar
Goodman, L.A. (1979). Simple models for the analysis of association in cross classifications having ordered categories. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 537–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L.A. (1981). Association models and cannonical correlation in the analysis of cross-classifications having ordered categories. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 320–334.Google Scholar
Goodman, L.A. (1985). The analysis of cross-classified data having ordered and or unordered categories: Association models, correlation models, and asymmetric models for contingency tables with or without missing entries. The Annals of Statistics, 13, 10–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L.A. (1986). Some useful extensions to the usual correspondence analysis approach and the usual log-linear models approach in the analysis of contingency tables. International Statistical Review, 54, 243–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenacre, M.J. (1984). Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenacre, M.J. (1989). The Carroll-Green-Schaffer scaling in correspondence analysis: A theoretical and expirical appraisal. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 358–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenen, P.J.F., & De Leeuw, J., Mathar, R. (1996). Least squares multidimensional scaling with transformed distances. In Gaul, W., & Pfeifer, D. (Eds.), Studies in classification, data analysis, and knowledge organization (pp. 177–185). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Haberman, S.J. (1974). The analysis of frequency data. Chicago: university of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haberman, S.J. (1978). Analysis of qualitative data, (vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haberman, S.J. (1979). Analysis of qualitative data (vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haberman, S.J. (1995). Computation of maximum likelihood estimates in association models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 1438–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiser, W.J. (1981). Unfolding analysis of proximity data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Leiden UniversityGoogle 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. (1988). Selecting a stimulus set with prescribed structure from empirical confusion frequencies. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 41, 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiser, W.J., & Meulman, J. (1983). Analyzing rectangular tables by joint and constrained multidimensional scaling. Journal of Econometrics, 22, 139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubert, L.J., & Arabie, P. (1986). Unidimensional scaling and combinatorial optimization. In De Leeuw, J., Heiser, W.J., Meulman, J., & Critchley, F. (Eds.), Multidimensional data analysis (pp. 181–196). Leiden: DSWO press.Google Scholar
Ihm, P., & Van Groenewoud, H. (1975). A multivariate ordering of vegetation data based on Gaussian type gradient response curves. Journal of Ecology, 63, 767–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihm, P., & Van Groenewoud, H. (1984). Correspondence analysis and Gaussian ordination. COMPSTAT Lectures, 3, 5–60.Google Scholar
Meulman, J.J., & Heiser, W.J. (1998). Visual display of interaction in multiway contingency tables by use of homogeneity analysis: the 2x2x2x2 case. In Blasius, J., & Greenacre, M.J. (Eds.), Visualization of categorical data (pp. 277–296). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meulman, J.J., & Heiser, W.J.SPSS Inc. (1999). Spss Categories 10.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
Nishisato, S. (1980). Analysis of categorical data: Dual scaling and its applications. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, R.M (1985). Overall similarity and the identification of separable-dimension stimuli: A choice model analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 415–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepard, R.N. (1957). Stimulus and response generalization: A stochastic model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. Psychometrika, 22, 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srole, L., Langner, T.S., Michael, S.T., & Opler, M.K., Rennie, T.A.C (1962). Mental health in the metropolis: The midtown Manhattan study. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takane, Y. (1987). Analysis of contingency tables by ideal point discriminant analysis. Psychometrika, 52, 493–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takane, Y. (1998). Visualization in ideal point discriminant analysis. In Blasius, J., & Greenacre, M.J. (Eds.), Visualization of categorical data (pp. 441–459). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takane, Y., & Shibayama, T. (1986). Comparison of models for the stimulus recognition data. In De Leeuw, J., Heiser, W.J., Meulman, J., & Critchley, F. (Eds.), Multidimensional data analysis (pp. 119–138). Leiden: DSWO Press.Google Scholar
Takane, Y., & Shibayama, T. (1992). Structures in stimulus identification data. In Ashby, F.G. (Eds.), Probabilistic multidimensional models of perception and cognition (pp. 335–362). Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
TerBraak, C.J.F. (1985). Correspondence analysis of incidence and abundance data: properties in terms of a unimodal response model. Biometrics, 41, 859–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Heijden, P.G.M. (1987). Correspondence analysis of longitudonal categorical data. Leiden: DSWO.Google Scholar
Van der Heijden, P.G.M., Mooijaart, A., & Takane, Y. (1994). Correspondence analysis and contingency models. In Greenacre, M.J., & Blasius, J. (Eds.), Correspondence analysis in the social sciences (pp. 79–111). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wiepkema, P.R. (1961). An ethological analysis of the reproductive behavior of the bitterling (rhodeus amarus bloch) Archives Neerlandais. Zoologique, 14, 103–199.Google Scholar
Winsberg, S., & Carroll, J.D (1989). A quasi-nonmetric method for multidimensional scaling via an extended Euclidean model. Psychometrika, 54, 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar