Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-w79xw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-19T22:07:55.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factor and Ideal Point Analysis for Interpersonally Incomparable Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Henry E. Brady
Henry E. Brady*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Chicago
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Henry E. Brady, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interpersonally incomparable responses pose a significant problem for survey researchers. If the manifest responses of individuals differ from their underlying true responses by monotonic transformations which vary from person to person, then the covariances of the manifest responses tools such as factor analysis may yield incorrect results. Satisfactory results for interpersonally incomparable ordinal responses can be obtained by assuming that rankings are based upon a set of multivariate normal latent variables which satisfy the factor or ideal point models of choice. Two statistical methods based upon these assumptions are described; their statistical properties are explored; and their computational feasibility is demonstrated in some simulations. We conclude that is possible to develop methods for factor and ideal point analysis of interpersonally incomparable ordinal data.

Keywords

interpersonally incomparable responsesrankingsfactor analysisideal-point analysisordinal data
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 181 - 202
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

This research was begun in the supportive enviroment of the Survey Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley. Financial support was provided by Percy Tannenbaum, Director of the Center, by Allan Sindler, Dean of the Graduate School of Public Policy at Berkeley, by the Data Center of Harvard University, and by the National Science Foundation through grant number SES-84-03056. Chris Achen, Doug Rivers, and members of the Harvard-MIT econometrics seminar provided useful comments.

References

Amemiya, Takeshi (1973). Regression analysis when the dependent variable is truncated normal. Econometrica, 41, 997–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderosn, T. W., & Rubin, R. (1956). Statistical inference in factor analysis. Proceedings of the third Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, Volume V.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. (1951). Social choice and individual values, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Bartholomew, D. J. (1980). Factor analysis for categorical data (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 42, 293–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholomew, D. J. (1983). Latent variable models for ordered categorical data. Journal of Econometrics, 22, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billingsly, P. (1979). Probability and measure, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Bock, R. Darrell, Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parateters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, R. D., Lieberman, M. (1970). Fitting a response model for n dichotomously scored items. Psychometrica, 35, 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M. W. (1974). Generalized least squares estimators in the analysis of covariance structures. South African Statistical Journal, 8, 1–24.Google Scholar
Browne, M. W. (1982). Covariance structures. In Hawkins, D. M. (Eds.), Topics in applied multivariate analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Christofferson, A. (1975). Factor analysis of dichotomized variables. Psychometrika, 40, 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T. (1983). Some comments on maximum likelihood and partial least squares methods. Journal of Econometrics, 22, 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domowitz, I., White, H. (1982). Misspecified models with dependent observations. Journal of Econometrics, 20, 35–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, J., Hinich, M. (1984). The spatial theory of voting: An introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halff, H. M. (1976). Choice theories for differentially comparable alternatives. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 14, 244–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, H. (1976). Modern Factor Analysis 3rd. ed.,, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Harshman, R. A., Lundy, M. E. (1984). Data preprocessing and the extended PARAFAC model. In Law, H. G., Snyder, C. W. Jr., Hattie, J. A., McDonald, R. P. (Eds.), Research Methods for Multimode Data Analysis, New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Hoffman, K. (1975). Analysis in Euclidean Space, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. L., Kotz, S. (1972). Distributions in statistics: Continuous multivariate distributions, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D. (1979). Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models, Cambridge, MA: Abt Books.Google Scholar
Kelly, J. (1978). Arrow impossibility theorems, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lawley, D. N., Maxwell, A. E. (1971). Factor analysis as a Statistical Method, London: Butterworths (Original work published in 1963)Google Scholar
Lee, S.-Y., Bentler, P. M. (1980). Some asymptotic properties of constrained generalized least squares estimation in covariance structure models. South African Statistical Journal, 14, 121–136.Google Scholar
Lerman, S. R., Manski, C. F. (1981). On the use of simulated frequencies to approximate choice probabilities. In Manski, C. F., McFadden, D. (Eds.), Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D., Suppes, P. (1965). Preference, utility and subjective probability. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., Galanter, E. (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology, Volume III, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Manski, C. F., McFadden, D. (1981). Alternative estimators and sample designs for discrete choice analysis. In Manski, C. F., McFadden, D. (Eds.), Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Muthén, B. (1978). Contributions to factor analysis of dichotomous variables. Psychometrika, 43, 551–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthén, B. (1983). Latent variable structural equation modeling with categorical data. Journal of Econometrics, 22, 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemi, R. G., Weisberg, H. F. (1972). Probability models of collective decision-making, Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
Rao, C. R. (1973). Linear statistical inference and its applications 2nd ed.,, New York: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, C. R., Mitra, S. K. (1971). Generalized inverse of matrices and its applications, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1970). Collective choice and social welfare, San Francisco: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Shapiro, A. (1983). Asymptotic distribution theory in the analysis of covariance structures (a unified approach). South African Statistical Journal, 17, 33–81.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. (1962). Analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. I. Psychometrika, 27, 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. (1962). Analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. II. Psychometrika, 27, 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
White, H. (1980). Nonlinear regression on cross-section data. Econometrica, 48, 721–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, H. (1982). Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica, 50, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar