Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-map comparison for group concept mapping: an approach for examining conceptual congruence through spatial correspondence

  • Published:
Quality & Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Group concept mapping, a participatory mixed-methods approach used extensively in behavioral and social research, is used to specify and generate a two-dimensional conceptual model based on input solicited from an identified group. In situations where the systematic evaluation of the multidimensional conceptualized patterns generated by different subgroups is meaningful, little guidance exists. This paper contrasts two analytical approaches, configural similarity comparison and Procrustes comparison, emphasizing the latter as a more rigorous and appropriate technique for facilitating such comparisons. As demonstrated in this study, Procrustes analysis provides a solid statistical and interpretative foundation to measuring the similarity of MDS configurations found in concept mapping output. Paired with a permutation strategy for assessing significance and examination of residual values, Procrustes analysis offers an objective means to evaluate the general concordance of multivariate patterns generated through group concept mapping. Statistical and visual techniques are also used to further explore the specific patterns of residual values generated in the Procrustes comparison. From this demonstration, a procedure for testing the correspondence between multiple two-dimensional concept maps where the same content is considered by independent groups is suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson’s correlation coefficient. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 54(6), 550–560 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldenderfer, M.S., Blashfield, R.K. (1984). Cluster Analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 07-044

  • Borg, I., Leutner, D.: Measuring the similarity of MDS configurations. Multivar. Behav. Res. 20, 325–334 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J.E.: Construct validity in measurement: a pattern matching approach. Eval. Program Plan. 12(1), 31–36 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumont, J.: Validity of multidimensional scaling in the context of structure conceptualization. Eval. Program Plan. 12(1), 81–86 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutilleul, P., Stockwell, J.D., Frigon, D., Legendre, P.: The Mantel test versus Pearson’s correlation analysis: assessment of the differences for biological and environmental studies. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 5(2), 131–150 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A.W., Mulford, C.F., Blachman-Demner, D.R.: Advancing our approach to teen dating violence: a youth and professional defined framework of teen dating relationships. Psychol. Violence (2015). doi:10.1037/a0039849

    Google Scholar 

  • Gower, J.C.: A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27(4), 857–871 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gower, J.C., Dijksterhuis, G.B.: Procrustes problems, vol. 3. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hammarlund, C.S., Nilsson, M.H., Idvall, M., Rosas, S.R., Hagell, P.:  Conceptualizing and prioritizing clinical trial outcomes from the perspectives of people with Parkinson’s disease versus health care professionals: a concept mapping study. Qual. Life Res. 23(6), 1687–1700 (2014)

  • Jackson, D.A.: PROTEST: a PROcrustean randomization TEST of community environment concordance. Ecoscience 2(3), 297–303 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M., Trochim, W.M.K.: Concept mapping for applied social research. In: Bickman, L., Rog, D. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, pp. 435–474. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M., Trochim, W.M.K.: Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2007)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • King, J.R., Jackson, D.A.: Variable selection in large environmental data sets using principal components analysis. Environmetrics 10(1), 67–77 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, J.B.: Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika 29(1), 1–27 (1964)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, J.B., Wish, M.: Multidimensional Scaling, vol. 11. Sage, Newbury Park (1978)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marquart, J.M.: A pattern matching approach to assess the construct validity of an evaluation instrument. Eval. Program Plan. 12(1), 37–43 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R.E.: Conceptual complexity and construct validity. J. Pers. Assess. 85(2), 112–124 (2005)

  • Peres-Neto, P.R., Jackson, D.A.: How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a Procrustean superimposition approach over the Mantel test. Oecologia 129, 169–178 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay, J.O., ten Berge, J., Styan, G.P.H.: Matrix correlation. Psychometrika 49(3), 403–423 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosas, S.R., Kane, M.: Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: a pooled study analysis. Eval. Program Plan. 35(2), 236–245 (2012)

  • Schneider, J.W., Borlund, P.: Matrix comparison, Part 2: measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results by use of the Mantel and Procrustes statistics. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58(11), 1596–1609 (2007a)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, J.W., Borlund, P.: Matrix comparison, Part 1: motivation and important issues for measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58(11), 1586–1595 (2007b)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, R.N.: Metric structures in ordinal data. J. Math. Psychol. 3, 287–300 (1966)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sibson, R.: Studies in the robustness of multidimensional scaling: Procrustes statistics. J. R. Stat. Soc. 40(2), 234–238 (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  • Trochim, W.M.: Pattern matching, validity, and conceptualization in program evaluation. Eval. Rev. 9(5), 575–604 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trochim, W.M.K.: An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Eval. Program Plan. 12(1), 1–16 (1989a)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trochim, W.M.: Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Eval. Program Plan. 12(4), 355–366 (1989b)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, F.W.: Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: recovery of metric information. Psychometrika 36, 455–473 (1970)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Carrie Mulford at the U.S. Office of Justice Programs for permission to access and use the data set from the Teen Dating Violence study. In addition I thank Dr. Martin Cloutier for his valuable input and suggestions on previous drafts of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Concept Systems, Inc., 136 East State Street, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Scott R. Rosas

Authors
  1. Scott R. Rosas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott R. Rosas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosas, S.R. Multi-map comparison for group concept mapping: an approach for examining conceptual congruence through spatial correspondence. Qual Quant 51, 2421–2439 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0399-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0399-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation