Advertisement

Clustering Ordinal Data via Latent Variable Models

  • Damien McParlandEmail author
  • Isobel Claire Gormley
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)

Abstract

Item response modelling is a well established method for analysing ordinal response data. Ordinal data are typically collected as responses to a number of questions or items. The observed data can be viewed as discrete versions of an underlying latent Gaussian variable. Item response models assume that this latent variable (and therefore the observed ordinal response) is a function of both respondent specific and item specific parameters. However, item response models assume a homogeneous population in that the item specific parameters are assumed to be the same for all respondents. Often a population is heterogeneous and clusters of respondents exist; members of different clusters may view the items differently. A mixture of item response models is developed to provide clustering capabilities in the context of ordinal response data. The model is estimated within the Bayesian paradigm and is illustrated through an application to an ordinal response data set resulting from a clinical trial involving self-assessment of arthritis.

Keywords

Latent Trait Ordinal Data Item Parameter Marginal Likelihood Markov Chain Monte Carlo Algorithm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has emanated from research conducted with the financial support of Science Foundation Ireland under Grant Number 09/RFP/MTH2367.

References

  1. Agresti, A. (2010). Analysis of ordinal categorical data. Hoboken: Wiley.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert, J. H., & Chib, S. (1993). Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 669–679.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cowles, M. K. (1996). Accelerating Monte Carlo Markov chain convergence for cumulative-link generalized linear models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 6, 101–111.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Fox, J. P. (2010). Bayesian item response modeling. New York: Springer.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frühwirth-Schnatter, S. (2001). Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation of classical and dynamic switching and mixture models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96, 194–209.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frühwirth-Schnatter, S. (2004). Estimating marginal likelihoods for mixture and Markov switching models using bridge sampling techniques. Statistica Sinica, 6, 831–860.Google Scholar
  7. Frühwirth-Schnatter, S. (2006). Finite mixture and Markov switching models. New York: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Geweke, J., & Zhou, G. (1996). Measuring the price of arbitrage theory. The Review of Financial Studies, 9, 557–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gormley, I. C., & Murphy, T. B. (2008). A mixture of experts model for rank data with applications in election studies. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 2(4), 1452–1477.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacobs, R. A., Jordan, M. I., Nowlan, S. J., & Hinton, G. E. (1991). Adaptive mixture of local experts. Neural Computation, 3, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson, V. E., & Albert, J. H. (1999). Ordinal data modeling. New York: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Lipsitz, S. R., & Zhao, L. (1994). Analysis of repeated categorical data using generalized estimating equations. Statistics in Medicine, 13, 1149–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lopes, H. F., & West, M. (2004). Bayesian model assessment in factor analysis. Statistica Sinica, 14, 41–67.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. McLachlan, G. J., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York: Wiley.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McNicholas, P. D., & Murphy, T. B. (2008). Parsimonious Gaussian mixture models. Statistics and Computing, 18(3), 285–296.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meng, X. L., & Wong, W. H. (1996). Simulating ratios of normalizing constants via a simple identity: a theoretical exploration. The Econometrics Journal, 7, 143–167.Google Scholar
  17. Von Davier, M. & Yamamoto, K. (2004). Partially observed mixtures of IRT models: an extension of the generalized partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28(6), 389–406.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations