Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T10:00:18.958Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linear and Multidimensional Scaling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Harold Gulliksen
Harold Gulliksen*
Affiliation:
Princeton University and Educational Testing Service
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Fechner’s work [12] was motivated by an interest in the mind-body problem concentrating particularly upon the question, “What is the relationship between the measurable characteristics of the physical stimulation and the subjective characteristics of the sensations produced?” Some of Fechner’s work was devoted to experiments in areas where the physical measurements that can be made on the object are not functionally related to the psychological characteristics.

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 1961 , pp. 9 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © 1961 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

*

Prepared as a technical report in connection with research partially supported by Office of Naval Research contract Nonr 1858-(15) and National Science Foundation Grant G-3407 to Princeton University, and by the Educational Testing Service. Reproduction of any part of this material is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government.

References

Attneave, F. Dimensions of similarity. Amer. J. Psychol., 1950, 63, 516–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boring, E. G. A history of experimental psychology, New York: Century, 1929.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. A. and Terry, M. E. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs and the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 1952, 39, 324–345.Google Scholar
Cliff, N. Adverbs as multipliers. Psychol. Rev., 1959, 66, 27–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coombs, C. H. A theory of psychological scaling, Ann Arbor: Univ. Michigan Press, 1952.Google Scholar
Coombs, C. H. On the use of inconsistency of preferences in psychological measurement. J. exp. Psychol., 1958, 55, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coombs, C. H. An application of a non-metric model for multidimensional analysis of similarities. Psychol. Rep., 1958, 4, 511–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C. H. and Kao, R. C. Non-metric factor analysis, Ann Arbor: Univ. Michigan Press, 1955.Google Scholar
Coombs, C. H. and Pruitt, D. C. A study of decision making under risk. J. exp. Psychol., in press.Google Scholar
Davis, J. M. The transitivity of preferences. Behav. Sci., 1958, 3, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dember, W. N. Psychology of perception, New York: Holt, 1960.Google Scholar
Fechner, G. T. Elemente der psychophysik, Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1860.Google Scholar
Fechner, G. T. Vorschule der aesthetik, Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1876.Google Scholar
Fullerton, G. S. and Cattell, J. McK On the perception of small differences, Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press, 1892.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods. (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.Google Scholar
Gulliksen, H. A least squares solution for successive intervals assuming unequal standard deviations. Psychometrika, 1954, 19, 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulliksen, H. Measurement of subjective values. Psychometrika, 1956, 21, 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulliksen, H. A least squares solution for paired comparisons with incomplete data. Psychometrika, 1956, 21, 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulliksen, H. Mathematical solutions for psychological problems. Amer. Scientist, 1959, 47, 178–201.Google Scholar
Gulliksen, H. Intercultural attitude comparisons. Princeton: Educ. Testing Serv. Res. Memo. 60-8, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulliksen, H. and Messick, S. Psychological scaling: theory and applications, New York: Wiley, 1960.Google Scholar
Gulliksen, H. and Tukey, J. Reliability for the law of comparative judgment. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helm, C. E. A multidimensional ratio scaling analysis of perceived color relation. Princeton Univ., Psychol. Dept., 1959. (multilith).Google Scholar
Householder, A. S. and Landahl, H. D.. Mathematical biophysics of the central nervous system, Bloomington, Ind.: Principia Press, 1945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingberg, F. L. Studies in the measurement of relations between sovereign states. Psychometrika, 1941, 6, 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D. Individual choice behavior, New York: Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
Messick, S. J. The perception of social attitudes. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1956, 52, 57–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Messick, S. J. and Abelson, R. P. Research tools: scaling and measurement theory. Rev. educ. Res., 1957, 27, 487–497.Google Scholar
Morrissey, J. H. New method for the assignment of psychometric scale values from incomplete paired comparisons. J. opt. Soc. Amer., 1955, 45, 373–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morton, A. S. Similarity as a determinant of friendship: a multidimensional study. Princeton Univ., Psychol. Dept., 1959. (multilith).Google Scholar
Mosteller, F. Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: I. The least squares solution assuming equal standard deviations and equal correlations. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosteller, F. Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: II. The effect of an aberrant standard deviation when equal standard deviations and equal correlations are assumed. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 203–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mosteller, F. Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: III. A test of significance for paired comparisons when equal standard deviations and equal correlations are assumed. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, E. B. The validity of the just noticeable difference as a unit of psychological magnitude. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., 1933, 36, 172–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C., Suci, G., and Tannenbaum, P. The measurement of meaning, Urbana: Univ. Illinois Press, 1957.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. W. Multidimensional psychophysics. Psychol. Bull., 1938, 35, 659–660.Google Scholar
Runkel, P. J. Cognitive similarity in facilitating communication. Sociometry, 1956, 19, 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. Stimulus and response generalization: Tests of a model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. J. exp. Psychol., 1958, 55, 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S. S. On the psychophysical law. Psychol. Rev., 1957, 64, 153–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorndike, E. L. Handwriting. Teachers Coll. Rec., 1910, 11(2), 1–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev., 1927, 34, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. The measurement of values, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1959.Google Scholar
Titchener, E. B. Experimental psychology. Vol. 1, New York: Macmillan, 1901.Google Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling, New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R. Dimensions of preference. Princeton: Educ. Testing Serv. Res. Memo. 60–7, 1960.Google Scholar
Young, G. and Householder, A. S. A discussion of a set of points in terms of their mutual distances. Psychometrika, 1938, 3, 19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar