Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T14:56:19.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideal Point Discriminant Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Yoshio Takane ,
Hamparsum Bozdogan  and
Tadashi Shibayama
Yoshio Takane*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Hamparsum Bozdogan
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Tadashi Shibayama
Affiliation:
University of Tokyo
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Yoshio Takane, Department of Psychology, McGill University, 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, Quebec H3A IB1, CANADA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new method of multiple discriminant analysis was developed that allows a mixture of continuous and discrete predictors. The method can be justified under a wide class of distributional assumptions on the predictor variables. The method can also handle three different sampling situations, conditional, joint and separate. In this method both subjects (cases or any other sampling units) and criterion groups are represented as points in a multidimensional euclidean space. The probability of a particular subject belonging to a particular criterion group is stated as a decreasing function of the distance between the corresponding points. A maximum likelihood estimation procedure was developed and implemented in the form of a FORTRAN program. Detailed analyses of two real data sets were reported to demonstrate various advantages of the proposed method. These advantages mostly derive from model evaluation capabilities based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC).

Type
Special Section
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , September 1987 , pp. 371 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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 work reported in this paper has been supported by Grant A6394 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and by a leave grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the first author. Portions of this study were conducted while the first author was at the Institute of Statistical Mathematics in Tokyo on leave from McGill University. He would like to express his gratitude to members of the Institute for their hospitality. Thanks are also due to T. Komazawa at the Institute for letting us use his data, to W. J. Krzanowski at the University of Reading for providing us with Armitage, McPherson, and Copas' data, and to Don Ramirez, Jim Ramsay and Stan Sclove for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, E. B. (1980). Discrete statistical models with social science applications, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. A. (1972). Separate sample logistic discrimination. Biometrika, 59, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. A. (1974). Diagnosis by logistic discriminant function. Applied Statistics, 23, 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. A. (1982). Logistic discrimination. In Krishnaiah, P. R., Kanal, L. N. (Eds.), Handbook of statistics 2, Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Armitage, P., McPherson, C. K., Copas, J. C. (1969). Statistical studies of prognosis in advanced breast cancer. Journal of Chronic Disease, 22, 343–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bozdogan, H. (1986). Multi-sample cluster analysis as an alternative to multiple comparison procedures. Bulletin of Informatics and Cybernetics, 22, 95–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. D., Chang, J. J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via anN-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C. H. (1964). A theory of data, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cox, D. R. (1966). Some procedure connected with the logistic qualitative response curve. In David, F. N. (Eds.), Research papers in statistics: Festschrift for J. Neyman (pp. 55–71). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Daudin, J. J. (1986). Selection of variables in mixed-variable discriminant analysis. Biometrics, 42, 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, N. E., Kerridge, D. F. (1967). A general maximum likelihood discriminant. Biometrics, 23, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Efron, B. (1975). The efficiency of logistic regression compared to normal discriminant analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 892–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B. (1983). Estimating the error rate of a prediction rule: Improvement on cross-validation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78, 316–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B. (1986). How biased is the apparent error rate of a prediction rule?. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1936). The use of multiple measurement in taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics, 7, 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hand, D. J. (1981). Discrimination and classification, Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hand, D. J. (1982). Kernel discriminant analysis, Chichester: Research Studies Press.Google Scholar
Hayashi, C. (1952). On the prediction of phenomena from qualitative data and the quantification of qualitative data from the mathematico-statistical point of view. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 2, 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalbfleisch, J. G. (1984). Aspects of categorical data analysis. In Chaubey, Y. P., Dwivedi, T. D. (Eds.), Topics in applied statistics (pp. 139–150). Montreal: Concordia University Press.Google Scholar
Komazawa, T. (1982). Suuryoka riron to deta shori [Quantification theory and data processing]. Tokyo: Asakurashoten.Google Scholar
Krzanowski, W. J. (1975). Discrimination and classification using both binary and continuous variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 782–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzanowski, W. J. (1977). The performance of Fisher's linear discriminant function under non-optimal conditions. Technometrics, 19, 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachenbruch, P. A. (1975). Discriminant analysis, New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
Lachenbruch, P. A., Sneeringer, C., Revo, L. T. (1973). Robustness of the linear and quadratic discrimination function to certain types of nonnormality. Communications in Statistics, 1, 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
McCullagh, P., Nelder, J. A. (1983). Generalized linear models, London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pregibon, D. (1981). Logistic regression diagnostics. The Annals of Statistics, 9, 705–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. (1978). Confidence regions for multidimensional scaling analysis. Psychometrika, 43, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakamoto, Y., Ishiguro, M., Kitagawa, G. (1986). Akaike information criterion statistics, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Schönemann, P. H. (1972). An algebraic solution for the class of subjective metrics models. Psychometrika, 39, 441–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönemann, P. H., Wang, M. M. (1972). An individual difference model for the multidimensional analysis of preference data. Psychometrika, 37, 275–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villalobos, M. A. (1983). Estimation of posterior probabilities using multivariate smoothing splines and generalized cross validation, Madison: University of Wisconsin, Department of Statistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, S. H., Duncan, D. B. (1967). Estimation of the probability of an event as a function of several independent variables. Biometrika, 54, 167–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed