Thurstonian models for variants of the method of tetrads

British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 205-215

  Ennis, John M ^a   Ennis, Daniel M ^b   Yip, Dorene ^c   O'Mahony, Michael ^c  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Institute of Perception   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001492457     PISSN: 00071102     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1998.tb00677.x     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Ashby, F. G. & Perrin, N. (1988). Toward a unified theory of similarity and recognition. Psychological Review, 95, 124-150.
2. Ashby, F. G. & Townsend, J. T. (1986). Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review, 93, 154-179.
3. Ashby, F. G. (Ed.) (1992). Multidimensional Models of Perception and Cognition. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Coombs, C. H. (1964). A Theory of Data. New York: Wiley.
5. David, H. A. & Trivedi, M. C. (1962). Pair, triangle and duo-trio tests. Technical report 55, Department of Statistics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia.
6. De Soete, G., Carroll, J. D. & DeSarbo, W. S. (1986). The wandering ideal point model: A probabilistic multidimensional unfolding model for paired comparisons data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30, 28-41.
7. Delwiche, J. & O'Mahony, M. (1996). Flavour discrimination: An extension of Thurstonian 'paradoxes' to the tetrad method. Food Quality and Preference, 7, 1-5.
8. Ennis, D. M. (1993a). A single multidimensional model for discrimination, identification and preferential choice. Acta Psychologica, 84, 17-27.
9. Ennis, D. M. (1993b). The power of sensory discrimination methods. Journal of Sensory Studies, 8, 353-370.
10. Ennis, D. M. & Ashby, F. G. (1993). The relative sensitivity of same-different and identification judgment models to perceptual dependence. Psychometrika, 58, 257-279.
11. Ennis, D. M. & Johnson, N. L. (19934). A general model for preferential and triadic choice in terms of central F distribution functions. Psychometrika, 59, 91-96.
12. Ennis, D. M. & Mullen, K. (1986). A multivariate model for discrimination methods. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30, 206-219.
13. Ennis, D. M. & Mullen, K. (1992). Probabilistic psychophysics with noisy stimuli. Mathematical Social Sciences, 23, 221-234.
14. Ennis, D. M., Mullen, K. & Frijters, J. E. R. (1988). Variants of the method of triads: unidimensional Thurstonian models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 41, 25-36.
15. Ennis, D. M., Palen, J. & Mullen, K. (1988). A multidimensional stochastic theory of similarity. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 32, 449-465.
16. Frijters, J. E. R. (1979). Variations of the triangular method and the relationship of its unidimensional probabilistic models to three-alternative forced choice signal detection theory models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 32, 229-241.
17. Hacker, M. J. & Ratcliff, R. (1979). A revised table of d′ for M-alternative forced choice. Perception and Psychophysics, 26, 168-170.
18. Mullen, K. & Ennis, D. M. (1991). A simple multivariate probabilistic model for preferential and triadic choices. Psychometrika, 56, 69-75.
19. Nosofsky, R. M. (1990). Relations between exemplar-similarity and likelihood models of classification. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 34, 393-418.
20. O'Mahony, M., Masuoka, S. & Ishii, R. (1994). A theoretical note on difference tests: models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. Journal of Sensory Studies, 9, 247-272.
21. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273-286.
22. Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and Methods of Scaling. New York: Wiley.
23. Ura, S. (1960). Pair, triangle and duo-trio tests. Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers, 7, 107-119.
24. Zinnes, J. L. & MacKay, D. B. (1987). Probabilistic multidimensional analysis of preference ratio judgments. Communications and Cognition, 20, 17-44.