Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T10:00:22.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Adjusted Rand Statistic: A SAS Macro

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Dennis G. Fisher  and
Paul Hoffman
Dennis G. Fisher*
Affiliation:
Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, University of Alaska Anchorage
Paul Hoffman
Affiliation:
Office of Academic Computing, University of California, Los Angeles
*
Reprint requests should be sent to Dennis G. Fisher, Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, University of Alaska Anchorage, 3211 Providence Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A macro for calculating the Hubert and Arabie (1985) adjusted Rand statistic is presented. The adjusted Rand statistic gives a measure of classification agreement between two partitions of the same set of objects. The macro is written in the SAS macro language and makes extensive use of SAS/IML software (SAS Institute, 1985a, 1985b). The macro uses two different methods of handling missing values. The default method assumes that each object that has a missing value for the classification category is in its own separate category or cluster for that classification. The optional method places all objects with a missing value for the classification category into the same category for that classification.

Type
Computational Psychometrics
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 417 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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

This study was supported in part by Individual National Research Service Award F32 DA 05283 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

The authors would like to thank the following people for assistance in the preparation of this manuscript: Philip Bardsley, Mike Graham, Eric Holman, Glenn Milligan, Lynn Pulliam, Janice Rayman, Beth Riddle, Matthew Schall, and Thomas Wickens

Requests for the Macro code can be sent via BITNET: CUSGPXH @ UCLAMVS. A copy of the macrocode can also be obtained by sending a stamped self-addressed mailer and a PC-DOS formatted floppy diskette to Paul Hoffman, 5628 MSA, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1557.

References

Berzins, J. I., Ross, W. F., & English, G. E., Haley, J. V. (1974). Subgroups among opiate addicts: A typological investigation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83(1), 65–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelbrock, C. (1979). Mixture model tests of hierarchical clustering algorithms: The problem of classifying everybody. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 367–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Filstead, W. J., Drachman, D. A., Rossi, J. J., & Getsinger, S. H. (1983). The relationship of MMPI subtype membership to demographic variables and treatment outcome among substance misusers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 44(5), 917–922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, D. G., Anglin, M. D., Weisman, C. P., & Pulliam, L. (1988). Replication problems of substance abuser MMPI cluster types. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Hubert, L., & Arabie, P. (1985). Comparing partitions. Journal of Classification, 2, 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorr, M., & Radhakrishnan, B. K. (1967). A comparison of two methods of cluster analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27, 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1986). A study of the comparability of external criteria for hierarchical cluster analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 441–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morey, L. C., & Agresti, A. (1984). The measurement of classification agreement: An adjustment to the Rand statistic for chance agreement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. (1986). A PROC MATRIX program for preference-dissimilarity multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 51, 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rand, W. M. (1971). Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66(336), 846–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute (1979). SAS user's guide: 1979 edition, Cary, NC: Author.Google Scholar
SAS Institute (1985). SAS/IML user's guide: Version 5 edition, Cary, NC: Author.Google Scholar
SAS Institute (1985). SAS user's guide: Basics Version 5 edition,, Cary, NC: Author.Google Scholar
Wishart, D. (1982). CLUST'AN user manual Third edition,, Edinburgh: Program Library Unit, Edinburgh University.Google Scholar