Journal of Classification

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 53–69 | Cite as

Complementary Use of Rasch Models and Nonlinear Principal Components Analysis in the Assessment of the Opinion of Europeans About Utilities



Two non-standard techniques – the Rasch Model and Nonlinear Principal Components Analysis – originally proposed in other fields are presented and discussed to measure the opinion of European citizens about utilities. The Eurobarometer survey data are thus considered. The potential of both methods and their complementary use are highlighted; in particular the methods allow the questionnaire to be calibrated, the role of different services and aspects of service to be established, and the consumer satisfaction to be assessed and compared among European countries, different years and services.


Customer satisfaction Eurobarometer Ordinal variables Service quality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ANDRICH, D. (1988), “A General Form of Rasch’s Extended Logistic Model for Partial Credit Scoring”, Applied Measurement in Education, I, 363–378.Google Scholar
  2. ANDRICH, D., SHERIDAN, B., LYNE, A., and LUO G. (2000), RUMM: A Windows-Based Item Analysis Program Employing Rasch One-Dimensional Measurement Models, Perth, Australia: Murdoch University.Google Scholar
  3. ANDRICH, D. (2004), “Controversy and the Rasch Model: A Characteristic of Incompatible Paradigms?”, Medical Care, 42(1), 7–14.Google Scholar
  4. DE BATTISTI, F., NICOLINI, G., and SALINI, S. (2005), “The Rasch Model to Measure the Service Quality”, The ICFAI Journal of Services Marketing, 3(3), 58–80.Google Scholar
  5. DE BATTISTI, F., NICOLINI, G, and SALINI S. (2010), “The Rasch Model in Customer Satisfaction Survey Data”, Qualitative Technology and Quantitative Managment, 7(1), 15–34.Google Scholar
  6. EUROBAROMETER (2002, 2004, 2006), Report No. 58-2002, Report No. 53-2004, Report No. 62.1-2006,
  7. FERRARI, P.A., ANNONI, P., and SALINI, S. (2005), A Comparison Between Alternative Models for Environmental Ordinal Data: Nonlinear PCA vs Rasch Analysis, 20th IWSM 2005, Sydney.Google Scholar
  8. FERRARI, P.A., ANNONI, P., and MANZI, G. (2010), “Evaluation and Comparison of European Countries: Public Opinion on Services”, Quality & Quantity, 44 (6), 1191–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. FERRARI, P.A., and MANZI, G. (2010), “Nonlinear Principal Components Analysis as a Tool for the Evaluation of Customer Satisfaction”, Qualitative Technology and Quantitative Managment, 7(2), 117–132.Google Scholar
  10. FIORIO, C.V., FLORIO, M., SALINI, S., and FERRARI, P.A. (2007), “Consumers’ Attitudes on Services of General Interest in the EU: Accessibility, Price and Quality 2000-2004”, in: Servizi Pubblici: Nuove Tendenze nella Regolamentazione, nella Produzione e nel Finanziamento; eds. M. Marrelli, F. Padovano, and I. Rizzo, Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli, pp. 83-110.Google Scholar
  11. GIFI, A. (1990), Nonlinear Multivariate Analysis, New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. GREEN, P.E., and SRINIVASAN, V. (1978), “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook”, Journal of Consumer Research, 5(2), 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. HAMBLETON, R.K., SWAMINATHAN, H., and ROGERS, H. J. (1991), Fundamentals of Item Response Theory, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Press.Google Scholar
  14. HEISER, W.J., and MEULMAN, J.J. (1994), “Homogeneity Analysis: Exploring the Distribution of Variables and Their Nonlinear Relationship”, in Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences: Recent Developments and Applications, eds. M.J. Greenacre. and J. Blasius, New York: Academic Press, Harcourt Brace & Company, pp. 179–209.Google Scholar
  15. LINTING, M., MEULMAN, J. J., GROENEN, P. J. F., and VAN DER KOOIJ, A. J. (2007a), “Nonlinear Principal Components Analysis: Introduction and Application”, Psychological Methods, 12, 336–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. LINTING, M., MEULMAN, J.J., GROENEN, P.J.F., and VAN DER KOOIJ, A.J. (2007b), “Stability of Nonlinear Principal Components Analysis: An Empirical Study Using the Balanced Bootstrap”, Psychological Methods, 12, 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MEULMAN, J.J., VAN DER KOOIJ, A.J., and HEISER, W.J. (2004), “Principal Components Analysis with Nonlinear Optimal Scaling Transformations for Ordinal and Nominal Data”, in Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences, ed. D. Kaplan, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 49–70.Google Scholar
  18. MICHAILIDIS, G., and DE LEEUW, J. (1998), “The Gifi System of Descriptive Multivariate Analysis, Statistical Science, 13, 307–336.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. RASCH, G., (1960), Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests, Expanded edition (1980), Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research, with foreword and afterword by B.D. Wright, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. QTQM (2010), Qualitative Technology Quantitative Management, Special Issue, “Non-Standard Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Survey Data”, 7(1,2).Google Scholar
  21. SALINI, S., and KENETT, R. (2009), “Bayesian Networks of Customer Satisfaction Survey Data”, Journal of Applied Statistics, 36(11), 1177–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. VICHI, M., ROCCI, R., and KIERS, H.A.L. (2007), “Simultaneous Component and Clustering Models for Three-Way Data: Within and Between Approaches” Journal of Classification, 24(1), 71–98.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, Business and StatisticsUniversity of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations