Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T09:49:31.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nonparametric Unfolding of Binary Choice Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Keith T. Poole
Keith T. Poole*
Affiliation:
Carnegie-Mellon University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This paper shows a general nonparametric unfolding technique for maximizing the correct classification of binary choice or two-category data. The motivation for and the primary focus of the unfolding technique are parliamentary roll call voting data. However, the procedures that implement the unfolding also can be applied to the problem of unfolding rank order data as well as analyzing a data set that would normally be the subject of a probit, logit, or linear probability analysis. One aspect of the scaling method greatly improves Manski's “maximum score estimator” technique for estimating limited dependent variable models. To unfold binary choice data two subproblems must be solved. First, given a set of chooser or legislator points, a cutting plane must be found such that it divides the legislators/choosers into two sets that reproduce the actual choices as closely as possible. Second, given a set of cutting planes for the binary choices, a point for each chooser or legislator must be found which reproduces the actual choices as closely as possible. Solutions for these two problems are shown in this paper. Monte Carlo tests of the procedure show it to be highly accurate in the presence of voting error and missing data.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , 23 March 2000 , pp. 211 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Society for Political Methodology 

References

Andrich, David. 1995. “Hyperbolic Cosine Latent Trait Models for Unfolding Direct Responses and Pairwise Preferences.” Applied Psychological Measurement 19: 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Joseph F., and Hays, William L. 1960. “Multidimensional Unfolding: Determining the Dimensionality of Ranked Preference Data.” Psychometrika 25: 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, Alvin M., Young, Forrest W., and Hall, Robert G. 1979. “On the Precision of a Euclidean Structure.” Psychometrika 44: 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Blokland-Vogelesang, Rian. 1991. Unfolding and Group Consensus Ranking for Individual Preferences. Leiden: DWSO Press.Google Scholar
Borg, Ingwer, and Groenen, Patrick. 1997. Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. Douglas. 1980. “Models and Methods for Multidimensional Analysis of Preferential Choice (or Other Dominance) Data.” In Similarity and Choice, eds. Lantermann, E. D. and Feger, H. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.Google Scholar
Chang, J. J., and Douglas Carroll, J. 1969. How to Use MDPREF, a Computer Program for Multidimensional Analysis of Preference Data, Computer manual. Murray Hill, NJ: Bell Labs.Google Scholar
Coombs, Clyde. 1950. “Psychological Scaling Without a Unit of Measurement.” Psychological Review 57: 148–158.Google Scholar
Coombs, Clyde. 1964. A Theory of Data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Mathew D. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
DeSarbo, Wayne S., and Cho, Jaewun. 1989. “A Stochastic Multidimensional Scaling Vector Threshold Model for the Spatial Representation of ‘Pick Any/N’ Data.” Psychometrika 54: 105–129.Google Scholar
DeSarbo, Wayne S., and Hoffman, Donna L. 1987. “Constructing MDS Joint Spaces from Binary Choice Data: A Multidimensional Unfolding Threshold Model for Marketing Research.” Journal of Marketing Research 24: 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckart, Carl, and Young, Gale. 1936. “The Approximation of One Matrix by Another of Lower Rank.” Psychometrika 1: 211–218.Google Scholar
Gifi, Albert. 1990. Nonlinear Multivariate Analysis. Chicester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. 1993. Econometric Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J., and Snyder, James M. 1997. “Linear Probability Models of the Demand for Attributes With an Empirical Application to Estimating the Preferences of Legislators.” Rand Journal of Economics 28: 142–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiser, Willem J. 1981. Unfolding Analysis of Proximity Data. Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Hojo, Hiroshi. 1994. “A New Method for Multidimensional Unfolding.” Behaviormetrika 21: 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, David C. 1998. “Party Competition and Polarization in American Politics.” Paper presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kruskal, Joseph B., Young, Forrest W., and Seery, Judith B. 1978. “How to Use KYST-2, a Very Flexible Program to Do Multidimensional Scaling and Unfolding.” Murray Hill, NJ: Bell Laboratories (unpublished).Google Scholar
Lang, Serge. 1979. Calculus of Several Variables. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Lingoes, James C. 1963. “Multiple Scalogram Analysis: A Set-Theoretic Model for Analyzing Dichotomous Items.” Education and Psychological Measurement 23: 501–524.Google Scholar
Londregan, John B. 2000. “Estimating Legislators’ Preferred Points. Political Analysis 8(1): 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, Duncan Jr. 1958. Dimensions of Congressional Voting. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Manski, Charles F. 1975. “Maximum Score Estimation of the Stochastic Utility Model of Choice.” Journal of Econometrics 3: 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manski, Charles F. 1985. “Semiparametric Analysis of Discrete Response: Asymptotic Properties of the Maximum Score Estimator.” Journal of Econometrics 27: 313–333.Google Scholar
Manski, Charles F., and Scott Thompson, T. 1986. “Operational Characteristics of Maximum Score Estimation.” Journal of Econometrics 32: 85–108.Google Scholar
McFadden, Daniel. 1976. “Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey.” Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5: 363–390.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John, and Cliff, Norman. 1964. “A Generalization of the Interpoint Distance Model.” Psychometrika 29: 167–176.Google Scholar
Salas, Saturnino L., and Hille, Einar. 1974. Calculus: One and Several Variables with Analytic Geometry. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Schonemann, Peter H. 1966. “A Generalized Solution of the Orthogonal Procrustes Problem.” Psychometrika 31: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shye, Samuel, 1978. Theory Construction and Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Spector, L., and Mazzeo, M. 1980. “Probit Analysis and Economic Education.” Journal of Economic Education 11: 37–44.Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R. 1960. “Intra-individual and Inter-individual Multidimensionality.” In Psychological Scaling: Theory and Applications, eds. Gulliksen, H. and Messick, S. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Van Schuur, Wijbrandt H. 1992. “Nonparametric Unidimensional Unfolding for Multicategory Data.” In Political Analysis, Vol. 4, ed. Freeman, John H. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F. 1968. Dimensional Analysis of Legislative Roll Calls, Doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Young, Gale, and Householder, A. S. 1938. “Discussion of a Set of Points in Terms of their Mutual Distances.” Psychometrika 3: 19–22.Google Scholar