Population recovery capabilities of 35 cluster analysis methods.

Comparative evaluation of population recovery capabilities of 35 cluster analysis methods defined by different combinations of 5 profile similarity measures and 7 agglomeration rules was undertaken using artificial data that represented duplicate mixture samples from 4 latent populations. The latent population mean profiles differed primarily in elevation or in pattern parameters. Latent population sampling variances were controlled to provide two different levels of realistic overlap. The within-population distributions were multivariate normal with diagonal covariance structure. Across all conditions examined, complete linkage and Ward's minimum variance methods, used with Euclidian or city block interprofile distance measures, performed best. Single linkage, median, and centroid methods were substantially inferior for clustering individuals in accordance with true population memberships.

[1]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  L E Hollister,et al.  Nosology of depression and differential response to drugs. , 1966, JAMA.

[3]  R. Mojena,et al.  Hierarchical Grouping Methods and Stopping Rules: An Evaluation , 1977, Comput. J..

[4]  John C. Ogilvie,et al.  Evaluation of hierarchical grouping techniques; a preliminary study , 1972, Comput. J..

[5]  G. W. Milligan,et al.  A monte carlo study of thirty internal criterion measures for cluster analysis , 1981 .

[6]  Roger K. Blashfield,et al.  Mixture model tests of cluster analysis: Accuracy of four agglomerative hierarchical methods. , 1976 .

[7]  Brian Everitt,et al.  Cluster analysis , 1974 .

[8]  Maurice Lorr,et al.  Explorations in typing psychotics , 1966 .

[9]  G. W. Milligan,et al.  An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set , 1985 .

[10]  L. Fisher,et al.  391: A Monte Carlo Comparison of Six Clustering Procedures , 1975 .

[11]  John E. Overall,et al.  Replication as a Rule for Determining the Number of Clusters in Hierarchial Cluster Analysis , 1992 .

[12]  J. Gower.  A comparison of some methods of cluster analysis. , 1967, Biometrics.

[13]  S. C. Johnson.  Hierarchical clustering schemes , 1967, Psychometrika.

[14]  William M. Rand,et al.  Objective Criteria for the Evaluation of Clustering Methods , 1971 .

[15]  Charles K. Bayne,et al.  Monte Carlo comparisons of selected clustering procedures , 1980, Pattern Recognit..

[16]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[17]  Ray Zimmerman,et al.  A Comparison of the Accuracy of Four Methods for Clustering Jobs , 1982 .

[18]  H. Charles Romesburg,et al.  Cluster analysis for researchers , 1984 .

[19]  Maurice Lorr,et al.  Syndromes of psychosis , 1963 .

[20]  A. M. Stoddard,et al.  Standardization of measures prior to cluster analysis. , 1979, Biometrics.