Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T17:52:06.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Scaling Models Applied to Data from Several Groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Clifford C. Clogg  and
Leo A. Goodman
Clifford C. Clogg*
Affiliation:
Departments of Sociology and Statistics, The Pennsylvania State University
Leo A. Goodman
Affiliation:
Departments of Statistics and Sociology, University of Chicago
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Clifford C. Clogg, Department of Statistics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Statistical methods are presented to facilitate a more complete analysis of results obtained when a scaling model is applied to data from two or more groups. These methods can be used to (a) compare the corresponding estimated latent distributions obtained using the scaling model applied to the different groups, (b) compare the corresponding estimated item reliabilities (or item response error rates) for the different groups, and (c) test whether the scaling model applied to the several groups can be replaced by a more parsimonious scaling model that includes various homogeneity constraints (i.e., constraints that describe which parameters in the model are the same for the several groups). Various kinds of scaling models are considered here in the multiple-group context.

Keywords

Scaling modelsGuttman's modelmultiple-group scaling modelslatent class modelsmultiple-group latent structure models

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 1986 , pp. 123 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Support for this research was provided in part by the National Science Foundation, to Clogg by Grant No. SES-7823759 and to Goodman by Grant No. SES-8303838. Clogg and Goodman were Fellows at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences when part of the research was done, with financial support provided in part by National Science Foundation grant BNS-8011494 to the Center. The authors are indebted to Mark P. Becker and James W. Shockey for helpful comments.

References

Andersen, E. B. (1980). Comparing latent distributions. Psychometrika, 45, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clogg, C. C. (1977). Unrestricted and restricted maximum likelihood latent structure analysis: A Manual for Users, University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Population Issues Research Center.Google Scholar
Clogg, C. C. (1984). Some statistical models for analyzing why surveys disagree. In Turner, C. F., Martin, E. (Eds.), Surveying Subjective Phenomena (Vol. 2), New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Clogg, C. C., Goodman, L. A. (1984). Latent structure analysis of a set of multidimensional contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 762–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clogg, C. C., Goodman, L. A. (1985). Simultaneous latent structure analysis in several groups. In Tuma, N. B. (Eds.), Sociological Methodology 1985, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Clogg, C. C., Sawyer, D. O. (1981). A comparison of alternative models for analyzing the scalability of response patterns. In Leinhardt, S. (Eds.), Sociological Methodology 1981, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Dayton, C. M., Macready, G. B. (1976). A probabilistic model for validation of behavioral hierarchies. Psychometrika, 41, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayton, C. M., Macready, G. A. (1980). A scaling model with response errors and intrinsically unscalable respondents. Psychometrika, 45, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, W. R., Madden, T. J, Kumar, A. (1983). Analyzing sequential categorical data on dyadic interaction: A latent structure approach. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 564–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, W. R., Goldstein, M. (1984). Multivariate Analysis: Methods and Applications, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Duncan, O. D. (1984). Rasch measurement in survey research: Further examples and discussion. In Turner, C. F., Martin, E. (Eds.), Surveying Subjective Phenomena (Vol. 2), New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. (1968). The analysis of cross-classified data: Independence, quasi-independence, and interactions in contingency tables with our without missing entries. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 63, 1091–1131.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. (1974). Exploratory latent structure analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika, 61, 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L. A. (1975). A new model for scaling response patterns: An application of the quasi-independence concept. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 755–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttman, L.et al. (1950). The basis for scalogram analysis. In Stouffer, S. A.et al. (Eds.), Measurement and Prediction: Studies in Social Psychology in World War II (Vol. IV), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Haberman, S. J. (1979). Analysis of Qualitative Data. Vol. 2. New Developments, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hays, D. G., Borgatta, E. F. (1954). An empirical comparison of restricted and general latent distance analysis. Psychometrika, 19, 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent Structure Analysis, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Owston, R. D. (1979). A maximum likelihood approach to “test of inclusion.”. Psychometrika, 44, 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proctor, C. A. (1970). A probabilistic formulation and statistical analysis of Guttman scaling. Psychometrika, 35, 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rindskopf, D. (1983). A general framework for using latent class analysis to test hierarchical and nonhierarchical learning models. Psychometrika, 48, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stouffer, S. A., Toby, J. (1951). Role conflict and personality. American Journal of Sociology, 56, 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar