Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T10:05:03.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Choice Model for Paired Comparison Data based on Imperfectly Nested Sets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Hannes Eisler
Hannes Eisler*
Affiliation:
University of Stockholm, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A ratio scale of subjective magnitude is developed from paired-comparison data. The model attempts to combine arguments of Restle, Ekman, and Luce relating data obtained from paired comparisons and corresponding data from direct psychophysical scaling methods at the ratio level. The basic set-theoretical model involves the use of imperfectly nested sets. A numerical example illustrates the application of the theory.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , December 1964 , pp. 363 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © 1964 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 research was supported by the Swedish Social Science Research Council and by the Swedish Board of Computing Machinery. I am indebted to Mr. U. Forsberg for computational assistance.

References

Björkman, M. Some relationships between psychophysical parameters. Rep. Psychol. Lab. No. 65, Univ. Stockholm, 1958.Google Scholar
Eisler, H. Similarity in the continuum of heaviness with some methodological and theoretical considerations. Scand. J. Psychol., 1960, 1, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisler, H. The connection between magnitude and discrimination scales and direct and indirect scaling methods. Psychometrika (in press).Google Scholar
Eisler, H. and Ekman, G. A mechanism of subjective similarity. Acta Psychol., 1959, 16, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisler, H. and Ottander, C. On the problem of hysteresis in psychophysics. J. exp. Psychol., 1963, 70, 243–253.Google Scholar
Ekman, G. Two generalized ratio scaling methods. J. Psychol., 1958, 45, 287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, G. Some aspects of psychophysical research. In Rosenblith, W. A. (Eds.), Sensory communication, New York: Wiley, 1961.Google Scholar
Ekman, G., Goude, G. and Waern, Y. Subjective similarity in two perceptual continua. J. exp. Psychol., 1961, 61, 222–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goude, G. On fundamental measurement in psychology, Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1962.Google Scholar
Hald, A. Statistical theory with engineering applications, New York: Wiley, 1960.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D. Individual choice behavior, New York: Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
Miller, G. Sensitivity to changes in the intensity of white noise and its relation to masking and loudness. J. acoust. Soc. Amer., 1947, 19, 609–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberlin, K. Variation in intensive sensitivity to lifted weights. J. exp. Psychol., 1936, 19, 438–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Restle, F. Psychology of judgment and choice, New York: Wiley, 1961.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. On the psychophysical law. Psychol. Rev., 1957, 64, 153–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suppes, P. and Zinnes, J. Basic measurement theory. In Luce, R. D. and Galanter, E. (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology, Vol. I, New York: Wiley, 1963.Google Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling, New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar