On the modelling and estimation of attribute rankings with ties in the Thurstonian framework

British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology

Volumn 62, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 507-527

  Poon, Wai Yin ^a   Xu, Liang ^b  

^a CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b SOUTHEAST UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MONTE CARLO METHOD; REIMBURSEMENT; SOCIAL MARKETING; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

ALGORITHMS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; RELATIVE VALUE SCALES; SOCIAL MARKETING; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 70449413667     PISSN: 00071102     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1348/000711008X337703     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Arbuckle, J. L., & Nugent, J. H. (1973). A general procedure for parameter estimation for the law of comparative judgement. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 26, 240-260.
2. Böckenholt, U. (1992). Thurstonian representation for partial ranking data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45, 31-49.
3. Bockenholt, U. (2002). A Thurstonian analysis of preference change. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46, 300-314.
4. Brady, H. E. (1989). Factor and ideal point analysis for interpersonally incomparable data. Psychometrika, 54, 181-202.
5. Carroll, D. J., Soete, G. D., & DeSarbo, W. S. (1990). Two stochastic multidimensional choice models for marketing research. Decision Science, 21, 337-356.
6. Chan, W., & Bentler, P. M. (1996). Covariance analysis of partially additive ipsative data using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31, 289-312.
7. Chan, W., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Covariance structure analysis of ordinal ipsative data. Psychometrika, 63, 369-399.
8. Currim, I. S. (1982). Predictive testing of consumer choice models not subject to independence of irrelevant alternatives. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 208-222.
9. David, H. A. (1988). The method of paired comparisons. New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion). Journal of Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39, 1-38.
11. Geman, S., & Geman, D. (1984). Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distribution, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 6, 721-741.
12. Haaijer, R.,Wedel, M., Vriens, M., & Wansbeek, T. (1998). Utility covariances and context effects in conjoint MNP models. Marketing Science, 17, 236-252.
13. Harlam, B. A., & Lodish, L. M. (1995). Modeling consumers' choices of multiple items. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 401-418.
14. Huber, J., & Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 307-317.
15. Kamakura, W. A., & Srivastava, R. K. (1984). Predicting choice shares under conditions of brand interdependence. Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 420-434.
16. Marden, J. I. (1995). Analyzing and modeling rank data. London: Chapman & Hall.
17. McLachlan, G. J., & Krishnan, T. (1997). The EM algorithm and extensions. New York: Wiley.
18. Meng, X.-L., & Schilling, S. (1996). Fitting full-information item factor models and an empirical investigation of bridge sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 1254-1267.
19. Poon, W.-Y., & Chan, W. (2002). Influence analysis of ranking data. Psychometrika, 67, 421-436.
20. Schott, J. R. (1997). Matrix analysis for statistics. New York: Wiley.
21. Sinha, I., & DeSarbo, W. S. (1998). An integrated approach toward the spatial modeling of perceived customer value. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 236-249.
22. Tanner, M. A., & Wong, W.-H. (1987). The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation (with discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 528-540.
23. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273-286.
24. Tsai, R.-C. (2000). Remarks on the identifiability of Thurstonian ranking models: Case V, Case III, or neither? Psychometrika, 65, 233-240.
25. Wei, G. C. G., & Tanner, M. A. (1990). A Monte Carlo implementation of the EM algorithm and the poor man's data augmentation algorithm. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85, 699-704.
26. Xu, L., Poon,W.-Y., & Lee, S.-Y. (2008). Influence analysis for the factor analysis model with ranking data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 133-161.
27. Yao, K.-P. G., & Böckenholt, U. (1999). Bayesian estimation of Thurstonian ranking models based on the Gibbs sampler. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 52, 79-92.
28. Yu, P. L. H. (2000). Bayesian analysis of ordered-statistics models for ranking data. Psychometrika, 65, 281-299.
29. Yu, P. L. H., & Lam, K. (1996). Analysis of duplicate bridge tournament data. Journal of Scandinavian Statistics, 23, 621-633.
30. Yu, P. L. H., Lam, K. F., & Lo, S. M. (2005). Factor analysis for ranked data with application to a job selection attitude survey. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A, 168, 583-597.