Psychometrika

, 73:729 | Cite as

The CHIC Model: A Global Model for Coupled Binary Data

  • Tom Wilderjans
  • Eva Ceulemans
  • Iven Van Mechelen
Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Often problems result in the collection of coupled data, which consist of different N-way N-mode data blocks that have one or more modes in common. To reveal the structure underlying such data, an integrated modeling strategy, with a single set of parameters for the common mode(s), that is estimated based on the information in all data blocks, may be most appropriate. Such a strategy implies a global model, consisting of different N-way N-mode submodels, and a global loss function that is a (weighted) sum of the partial loss functions associated with the different submodels. In this paper, such a global model for an integrated analysis of a three-way three-mode binary data array and a two-way two-mode binary data matrix that have one mode in common is presented. A simulated annealing algorithm to estimate the model parameters is described and evaluated in a simulation study. An application of the model to real psychological data is discussed.

Keywords

coupled data three-way three-mode data binary data hierarchical classes multi-way data analysis clustering data fusion 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aarts, E.H.L., Korst, J.H.M., & Van Laarhoven, P.J.M. (1997). Simulated annealing. In E.H.L. Aarts & J.K. Lenstra (Eds.), Local search in combinatorial optimization (pp. 91–120). Chichester: Wiley. Google Scholar
  2. Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B.N. Petrov & F. Csaki (Eds.), Second international symposium on information theory (pp. 267–281). Budapest: Academiai Kiado. Google Scholar
  3. Barbut, M., & Monjardet, B. (1970). Ordre et classification: algèbre et combinatoire. Paris: Hachette. Google Scholar
  4. Birkhoff, G. (1940). Lattice theory. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Google Scholar
  5. Boqué, R., & Smilde, A.K. (1999). Monitoring and diagnosing batch processes with multiway covariates regression models. AIChE Journal, 45, 1504–1520. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): the general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52, 345–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bozdogan, H. (2000). Akaike’s information criterion and recent developments in informational complexity. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 62–91. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carroll, J.D., & Chang, J.J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of “eckart-young” decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 283–319. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cattell, R.B. (1966). The meaning and strategic use of factor analysis. In R.B. Cattell (Ed.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (pp. 174–243). Chicago: Rand McNally. Google Scholar
  10. Ceulemans, E., & Van Mechelen, I. (2004). Tucker2 hierarchical classes analysis. Psychometrika, 69, 375–399. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ceulemans, E., & Van Mechelen, I. (2005). Hierarchical classes models for three-way three-mode binary data: interrelations and model selection. Psychometrika, 70, 461–480. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ceulemans, E., Van Mechelen, I., & Leenen, I. (2003). Tucker3 hierarchical classes analysis. Psychometrika, 68, 413–433. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ceulemans, E., Van Mechelen, I., & Leenen, I. (2007). The local minima problem in hierarchical classes analysis: An evaluation of a simulated annealing algorithm and various multistart procedures. Psychometrika, 72, 377–391. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coxe, K.L. (1986). Principal components regression analysis. In N.L. Johnson & S. Kotz (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical science (Vol. 7, pp. 181–186). New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  16. De Boeck, P., & Rosenberg, S. (1988). Hierarchical classes: model & data analysis. Psychometrika, 53, 361–381. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gati, I., & Tversky, A. (1982). Representations of qualitative and quantitative dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 325–340. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Harshman, R.A. (1970). Foundations of the parafac procedure: models and conditions for an explanatory multi-modal factor analysis. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 16, 1–84. Google Scholar
  19. Hubert, L., & Arabie, P. (1985). Comparing partitions. Journal of Classification, 2, 193–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C.D. Jr., & Vecchi, M.P. (1983). Optimization by simulated annealing. Science, 220, 671–680. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Leenen, I., & Van Mechelen, I. (2001). An evaluation of two algorithms for hierarchical classes analysis. Journal of Classification, 18, 57–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leenen, I., Van Mechelen, I., De Boeck, P., & Rosenberg, S. (1999). indclas: A three-way hierarchical classes model. Psychometrika, 64, 9–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McKenzie, D.M., Clarke, D.M., & Low, L.H. (1992). A method of constructing parsimonious diagnostic and screening tests. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 2, 71–79. Google Scholar
  24. Smilde, A.K., & Kiers, H.A.L. (1999). Multiway covariates regression models. Journal of Chemometrics, 13, 31–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smilde, A.K., Westerhuis, J.A., & Boqué, R. (2000). Multiway multiblock component and covariates regression models. Journal of Chemometrics, 14, 301–331. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ten Berge, J.M.F. (1986). Rotation to perfect congruence and the cross-validation of component weights across populations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 41–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Mechelen, I., De Boeck, P., & Rosenberg, S. (1995). The conjunctive model of hierarchical classes. Psychometrika, 60, 505–521. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Mechelen, I., Lombardi, L., & Ceulemans, E. (2007). Hierarchical classes modeling of rating data. Psychometrika, 72, 475–488. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vansteelandt, K., & Van Mechelen, I. (1998). Individual differences in situation-behavior profiles: a triple typology model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 751–765. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychometric Society 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Wilderjans
    • 1
  • Eva Ceulemans
    • 1
  • Iven Van Mechelen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations