The hyperbolic cosine unfolding model for direct responses of persons to individual stimuli is elabo rated in three ways. First, the parameter of the stimu lus, which reflects a region within which people located there are more likely to respond positively than negatively, is shown to be a property of the data and not arbitrary as first supposed. Second, the model is used to construct a related model for pairwise preferences. This model, for which joint maximum likelihood estimates are derived, satisfies strong sto chastic transitivity. Third, the role of substantive theory in evaluating the fit between the data and the models, in which unique solutions for the estimates are not guaranteed, is explored by analyzing responses of one group of persons to a single set of stimuli obtained both as direct responses and pairwise preferences.
Andersen, E.B. (1973). Conditional inference for multiple choice questionnaires . British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology , 26, 31-44.
Andrich, D. (1978a). A rating formulation for ordered response categories . Psychometrika, 43, 357-374.
4.
Andrich, D. (1978b). Relationships between the Thurstone and Rasch approaches to item scaling. Applied Psychological Measurement , 2, 451-462.
5.
Andrich, D. (1982). An extension of the Rasch model for ratings providing both location and dispersion parameters. Psychometrika, 47, 105-113.
6.
Andrich, D. (1988). The application of an unfolding model of the PIRT type for the measurement of attitude. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 33-51.
7.
Andrich, D. (1989). A probabilistic item response theory model for unfolding preference data. Applied Psychological Measurement , 13, 193-216.
8.
Andrich, D. (in press). Hyperbolic cosine IRT model for unfolding direct responses of persons to items. In W. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
9.
Andrich, D., & Luo, G. (1993). A hyperbolic cosine latent trait model for unfolding dichotomous single-stimulus responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 253-276.
10.
Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick, Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 397-479). Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
11.
Bossuyt, P. (1990). A comparison of probabilistic unfolding theories for paired comparisons data. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
12.
Bradley, R.A., & Terry, M.E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs 1: The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39, 324-345.
13.
Carroll, J.D. (1972). Individual differences and multidimensional scaling . In R. N. Shepard, A. K. Romney, & S. Nerlove (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications in the social sciences (Vol. 1; pp. 105-153). New York: Seminar Press.
14.
Coombs, C.H. (1964). A theory of data. New York : Wiley.
15.
Coombs, C.H., & Avrunin, C.S. (1977). Single-peaked functions and the theory of preference . Psychological Review, 84, 216-230.
16.
Coombs, C.H., & Smith, J.E.K. (1973). On the detection of structure in attitudes and developmental process. Psychological Review, 80, 337-351.
17.
Cooper, L.G., & Nakanishi, M. (1983). Two logit models for external preferences. Psychometrika, 48, 607-620.
18.
Davison, M. (1977). On a metric, unidimensional unfolding model for attitudinal and developmental data. Psychometrika, 42, 523-548.
19.
DeSarbo, W.A., & Hoffman, D.L. (1986). The simple and weighted thresholds model for the spatial representation of binary choice data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 247-264.
20.
Guttman, L. (1950). The basis for scalogram analysis. In S. A. Stouffer (Ed.), Measurement and prediction (pp. 60-90). New York: Wiley.
21.
Kuhn, T.S. (1961/1977). The function of measurement in modern physical science. Isis, 52, 161-193. Reproduced in Kuhn, T.S. (1977). The essential tension (pp. 178-239). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
22.
Leik, R.K., & Matthews, M. (1968). A scale for developmental processes. American Sociological Review, 33, 62-75.
23.
Luce, R.D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.
24.
Poole, K.T. (1984). Least squares metric, unidimensional unfolding . Psychometrika, 49, 311-323.
25.
Post, W.J. (1992). Nonparametric unfolding models: A latent structure approach. Leiden: DSWO Press.
26.
Rasch, G. (1960/80). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. (Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research). Expanded edition (1980), with foreword and afterword by B. D. Wright. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
27.
Rasch, G. (1961). On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology. In J. Neyman (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, IV, 321-334. Berkeley: University of California Press.
28.
Schönemann, P.H. (1970). On metric multidimensional unfolding. Psychometrika, 35, 349-366.
29.
Schönemann, P.H., & Wang, W.M. (1972). An individual differences model for the multidimensional analysis of preference data. Psychometrika, 37, 275-309.
30.
Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.
31.
Sixtl, F. (1973). Probabilistic unfolding. Psychometrika , 38, 235-248.
32.
Thurstone, L.L. (1927). A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review, 34, 278-286.
33.
Thurstone, L.L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529-54.
34.
van Blokland-Vogelesang, R. (1991). Unfolding and group consensus ranking for individual preferences. Leiden: DSWPO Press .
35.
van der Linden, W.J. (1993). Measurement scale in the Rasch model. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7, 287.
36.
van Schuur, W.H. (1984). Structure in political beliefs, a new model for stochastic unfolding with application to European party activists. Amsterdam: CT Press.
37.
van Schuur, W.H. (1987). Constraint in European party activists' sympathy scores for interest groups: The left-right dimension as dominant structuring principle. European Journal of Political Research, 15, 347-362.
38.
van Schuur, W.H. (1989). Unfolding German political parties: A description and application of multiple unidimensional unfolding. In G. de Soete, H. Ferger, & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), New developments in psychological choice modelling (pp. 259-277). Amsterdam: North Holland.
39.
Volet, S.E., & Chalmers, D. (1992). Investigation of qualitative differences in university students' learning goals, based on an unfolding model of stage development . British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 17-34.
40.
Wohlwill, J.F. (1963). The measurement of scalability for non-cumulative items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23, 543-55.
