, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 515–521 | Cite as

An alternating least squares algorithm for fitting the two- and three-way dedicom model and the idioscal model

  • Henk A. L. Kiers


The DEDICOM model is a model for representing asymmetric relations among a set of objects by means of a set of coordinates for the objects on a limited number of dimensions. The present paper offers an alternating least squares algorithm for fitting the DEDICOM model. The model can be generalized to represent any number of sets of relations among the same set of objects. An algorithm for fitting this three-way DEDICOM model is provided as well. Based on the algorithm for the three-way DEDICOM model an algorithm is developed for fitting the IDIOSCAL model in the least squares sense.

Key words

DEDICOM three mode data analysis IDIOSCAL 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J. J. (1972, March).IDIOSCAL (Individual Differences In Orientation SCALing): A generalization of INDSCAL allowing IDIOsyncratic reference systems as well as an analytic approximation to INDSCAL. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychometric Society, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  3. Carroll, J. D., & Wish, M. (1974). Models and methods for three-way multidimensional scaling. In D. H. Krantz, R. C. Atkinson, R. D. Luce, & P. Suppes (Eds.),Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology (Vol. II, pp. 57–105). San Francisco: Freeman & Company.Google Scholar
  4. De Leeuw, J., & Pruzansky, S. (1978). A new computational method to fit the weighted euclidean distance model.Psychometrika, 43, 479–490.Google Scholar
  5. Harshman, R. A. (1978, August).Models for analysis of asymmetrical relationships among N objects or stimuli. Paper presented at the First Joint Meeting of the Psychometric Society and the Society of Mathematical Psychology, Hamilton, Ontario.Google Scholar
  6. Harshman, R. A., Green, P. E., Wind, Y., & Lundy, M. E. (1982). A model for the analysis of asymmetric data in marketing research.Marketing Science, 1, 205–242.Google Scholar
  7. Harshman, R. A., & Kiers, H. A. L. (1987, June).Algorithms for DEDICOM analysis of asymmetric data. Paper presented at the European Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Enschede.Google Scholar
  8. Harshman, R. A., & Lundy, M. E. (1984). The PARAFAC model for three-way factor analysis and multidimensional scaling. In H. G. Law, C. W. Snyder Jr., J. A. Hattie, & R. P. McDonald (Eds.),Research methods for multimode data analysis (pp. 122–215). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  9. Keller, J. B. (1962). Factorization of matrices by least squares.Biometrika, 49, 239–242.Google Scholar
  10. Kroonenberg, P. M., & de Leeuw, J. (1980). Principal component analysis of three-mode data by means of alternating least squares algorithms.Psychometrika, 45, 69–97.Google Scholar
  11. ten Berge, J. M. F., & Nevels, K. (1977). A general solution to Mosier's oblique procrustes problem,Psychometrika, 42, 593–599.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychometric Society 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henk A. L. Kiers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations