Whether the Pairwise Rating Method and the Spatial Arrangement Method yield comparable dimensionalities depends on the dimensionality choice procedure

Steven Verheyen , Gert Storms
{"title":"Whether the Pairwise Rating Method and the Spatial Arrangement Method yield comparable dimensionalities depends on the dimensionality choice procedure","authors":"Steven Verheyen ,&nbsp;Gert Storms","doi":"10.1016/j.metip.2021.100060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We investigate whether the Pairwise Rating Method (PRaM) and the Spatial Arrangement Method (SpAM) yield multidimensional scaling (MDS) solutions of comparable dimensionality. Across three studies that included twelve semantic categories with varying numbers of both pictorial and verbal exemplars, we did not find consistent dimensionality differences between the two similarity measurement methods. The results alleviate the concern that SpAM might underestimate the dimensionality of high-dimensional stimuli compared to PRaM. However, the resulting number of dimensions was found to be highly dependent on the dimensionality choice procedure, indicating the need for a more systematic investigation into dimensionality selection for MDS.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93338,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100060"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.metip.2021.100060","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590260121000175","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We investigate whether the Pairwise Rating Method (PRaM) and the Spatial Arrangement Method (SpAM) yield multidimensional scaling (MDS) solutions of comparable dimensionality. Across three studies that included twelve semantic categories with varying numbers of both pictorial and verbal exemplars, we did not find consistent dimensionality differences between the two similarity measurement methods. The results alleviate the concern that SpAM might underestimate the dimensionality of high-dimensional stimuli compared to PRaM. However, the resulting number of dimensions was found to be highly dependent on the dimensionality choice procedure, indicating the need for a more systematic investigation into dimensionality selection for MDS.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两两评定法和空间排列法是否产生可比较的维度取决于维度选择过程
我们研究了配对评级方法(PRaM)和空间排列方法(SpAM)是否产生了维度比较的多维尺度(MDS)解决方案。在包括12个语义类别的三项研究中,我们没有发现两种相似度测量方法之间存在一致的维度差异。研究结果减轻了人们对垃圾邮件可能低估高维刺激维度的担忧。然而,所得到的维度数被发现高度依赖于维度选择过程,这表明需要对MDS的维度选择进行更系统的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Methods in Psychology (Online)
Methods in Psychology (Online) Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assessing daily life activities with experience sampling methodology (ESM): Scoring predefined categories or qualitative analysis of open-ended responses? The role of sampling in an explanatory sequential mixed methods study: General applications of the transformative paradigm “Making Positive Vibrations” in a mixed methods study of covert bullying: A transformative methodological framework for social justice Editorial Board Digging and building: How transformative mixed-methods research contributes to explaining and responding to educational exclusion and school dropout
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1