Advertisement

Journal of Classification

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 125–136 | Cite as

On the Indeterminacy of Resemblance Measures for Binary (Presence/Absence) Data

  • Matthijs J. Warrens
Article

Abstract

Many similarity coefficients for binary data are defined as fractions. For certain resemblance measures the denominator may become zero. If the denominator is zero the value of the coefficient is indeterminate. It is shown that the seriousness of the indeterminacy problem differs with the resemblance measures. Following Batagelj and Bren (1995) we remove the indeterminacies by defining appropriate values in critical cases.

Keywords

Association coefficients Indeterminate values Critical cases 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BARONI-URBANI, C. and BUSER, M.W. (1976), “Similarity of Binary Data,” Systematic Zoology, 25, 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BATAGELJ, V. and BREN, M. (1995), “Comparing Resemblance Measures,” Journal of Classification, 12, 73–90.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. BAULIEU, F.B. (1989), “A Classification of Presence/Absence Based Dissimilarity Coefficients,” Journal of Classification, 6, 233–246.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. BRAUN-BLANQUET, J. (1932), Plant Sociology: The Study of Plant Communities, Authorized English translation of Pflanzensoziologie, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. COHEN, J. (1960), “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DICE, L.R. (1945), “Measures of the Amount of Ecologic Association Between Species,” Ecology, 26, 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. FLEISS, J.L. (1975), “Measuring Agreement between Two Judges on the Presence or Absence of a Trait,” Biometrics, 31, 651–659.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. GOODMAN, L.A. and KRUSKAL, W.H. (1954), “Measures of Association for Cross Classifications,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 732–764.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. GOWER, J.C. and LEGENDRE, P. (1986), “Metric and Euclidean Properties of Dissimilarity Coefficients,” Journal of Classification, 3, 5–48.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. HAMANN, U. (1961), “Merkmalsbestand und Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen der Farinose. Ein Betrag zum System der Monokotyledonen,” Willdenowia, 2, 639–768.Google Scholar
  11. HAWKINS, R.P. and DOTSON, V.A. (1968), “Reliability Scores That Delude: An Alice in Wonderland Trip Through Misleading Characteristics of Interobserver Agreement Scores in Interval Recording”, in Behavior Analysis: Areas of Research and Application, eds. E. Ramp and G. Semb, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  12. JACCARD, P. (1912), “The Distribution of the Flora in the Alpine Zone,” The New Phytologist, 11, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. KULCZYŃSKI, S. (1927), “Die Pflanzenassociationen der Pienenen,” Bulletin International de L’Académie Polonaise des Sciences et des Letters, classe des sciences mathematiques et naturelles, Serie B, Suppl´ement II, 2, 57–203.Google Scholar
  14. LOEVINGER, J.A. (1948), “The Technique of Homogeneous Tests Compared with Some Aspects of Scale Analysis and Factor Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin, 45, 507–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MAXWELL, A.E. and PILLINER, A. E. G. (1968), “Deriving Coefficients of Reliability and Agreement for Ratings,” British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 21, 105–116.Google Scholar
  16. MCCONNAUGHEY, B.H. (1964), “The Determination and Analysis of Plankton Communities,” Marine Research, Special No., Indonesia, 1–40.Google Scholar
  17. MICHAEL, E.L. (1920), “Marine Ecology and the Coefficient of Association: A Plea in Behalf of Quantitative Biology,” The Journal of Ecology, 8, 54–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. OCHIAI, A. (1957), “Zoogeographic Studies on the Soleoid Fishes Found in Japan and Its Neighboring Regions,” Bulletin of the Japanese Society for Fish Science, 22, 526–530.Google Scholar
  19. ROGERS, D.J. and TANIMOTO, T.T. (1960), “A Computer Program for Classifying Plants,” Science, 132, 1115–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. RUSSEL, P.F. and RAO, T.R. (1940), “On Habitat and Association of Species of Anopheline Larvae in South-Eastern Madras,” Journal of Malaria Institute India, 3, 153–178.Google Scholar
  21. SCOTT,W.A. (1955), “Reliability of Content Analysis: The Case of Nominal Scale Coding,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. SIMPSON, G.G. (1943), “Mammals and the Nature of Continents,” American Journal of Science, 241, 1–31.Google Scholar
  23. SOKAL, R.R. and MICHENER, C.D. (1958), “A Statistical Method for Evaluating Systematic Relationships,” University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 38, 1409–1438.Google Scholar
  24. SOKAL, R.R. and SNEATH, R.H. (1963), Principles of Numerical Taxonomy, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  25. SØRENSON, T. (1948), “A Method of Stabilizing Groups of Equivalent Amplitude in Plant Sociology Based on the Similarity of Species Content and Its Application to Analyses of the Vegetation on Danish Commons,” Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Biologiske Skrifter, 5, 1–34.Google Scholar
  26. SORGENFREI, T. (1958), Molluscan Assemblages from the Marine MiddleMiocene of South Jutland and Their Environments, Copenhagen: Reitzel.Google Scholar
  27. YULE, G.U. (1900), “On the Association of Attributes in Statistics,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 194, 257–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. YULE, G.U. (1912), “On the Methods of Measuring the Association between Two Attributes,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 75, 579–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychometrics and Research Methodology Group, Leiden University Institute for Psychological ResearchLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations