Remarks on the identifiability of thurstonian ranking models: Case V, case III, or neither?

It is well-known that the representations of the Thurstonian Case III and Case V models for paired comparison data are not unique. Similarly, when analyzing ranking data, other equivalent covariance structures can substitute for those given by Thurstone in these cases. That is, we may more broadly define the family of covariance structures satisfying Case III and Case V conditions. This paper introduces the notion of equivalence classes which defines a more meaningful partition of the covariance structures of the Thurstonian ranking models. In addition, the equivalence classes of Case V and Case III are completely characterized.

[1]  Yoshio Takane,et al.  MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION IN THE GENERALIZED CASE OF THURSTONE'S MODEL OF COMPARATIVE JUDGMENT , 1980 .

[2]  W. Gibson,et al.  A solution for case iii of the law of comparative judgment , 1954 .

[3]  Albert Maydeu-Olivares.  Structural Equation Modeling of Binary Preference Data , 1997 .

[4]  J. Marden.  Analyzing and Modeling Rank Data , 1996 .

[5]  M. Fligner,et al.  Distance Based Ranking Models , 1986 .

[6]  Geoffrey J. Iverson,et al.  Thurstonian psychophysics: Case III , 1987 .

[7]  L. V. Jones,et al.  The measurement and prediction of judgment and choice. , 1970 .

[8]  L. Thurstone.  A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

[9]  Ulf Böckenholt,et al.  Multivariate thurstonian models , 1990 .

[10]  Joseph L. Zinnes,et al.  Theory and Methods of Scaling. , 1958 .

[11]  Yoshio Takane,et al.  Analysis of Covariance Structures and Probabilistic Binary Choice Data , 1989 .

[12]  D. Wise,et al.  A CONDITIONAL PROBIT MODEL FOR QUALITATIVE CHOICE: DISCRETE DECISIONS RECOGNIZING INTERDEPENDENCE AND HETEROGENEOUS PREFERENCES' , 1978 .

[13]  U. Böckenholt.  Thurstonian representation for partial ranking data , 1992 .

[14]  Peter M. Bentler,et al.  Covariance structure analysis of ordinal ipsative data , 1998 .

[15]  Wagner A. Kamakura,et al.  Predicting Choice Shares under Conditions of Brand Interdependence , 1984 .

[16]  M. Fligner,et al.  Multistage Ranking Models , 1988 .

[17]  D. B. MacKay,et al.  Parameter estimation for the thurstone case III model , 1982 .

[18]  James Arbuckle,et al.  A GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR PARAMETER ESTIMATION FOR THE LAW OF COMPARATIVE JUDGEMENT , 1973 .

[19]  U. Böckenholt,et al.  BAYESIAN ESTIMATION OF THURSTONIAN RANKING MODELS BASED ON THE GIBBS SAMPLER , 1999 .

[20]  Geert De Soete,et al.  The Wandering Ideal Point Model: A Probabilistic Multidimensional Unfolding Model for Paired Comparisons Data , 1986 .

[21]  Henry E. Brady.  Factor and ideal point analysis for interpersonally incomparable data , 1989 .

[22]  Geert De Soete,et al.  A maximum likelihood method for fitting the wandering vector model , 1983 .

[23]  F. Mosteller.  Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: I. The least squares solution assuming equal standard deviations and equal correlations , 1951 .

[24]  Ayala Cohen,et al.  Assessing Goodness of Fit of Ranking Models to Data , 1983 .

[25]  Willem J. Heiser,et al.  Multidimensional mapping of preference data , 1981 .

[26]  Louis Guttman,et al.  An Approach for Quantifying Paired Comparisons and Rank Order , 1946 .

[27]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Thurstone's discriminal processes fifty years later , 1977 .