TY - JOUR
T1 - Tree Versus Geometric Representation of Tests and Items
AU - Beller, Michal
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2016 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 1990/3
Y1 - 1990/3
N2 - Factor-analytic techniques and multidimensional scaling models are the traditional ways of representing the interrelations among tests and items. Both can be classified as geometric approaches. This study at tempted to broaden the scope of models traditionally used, and to apply an additive tree model (ADDTREE) that belongs to the family of network models. Correla tion matrices were obtained from three studies and were analyzed using two representation models: Smallest Space Analysis (ssA), which is a multidimen sional scaling model, and ADDTREE. The results of both analyses were compared for the two criteria of goodness of fit and interpretability. To enable a com parison with the more traditional factor-analytic ap proach, the data were also subjected to principal com ponents analyses. ADDTREE fared better in both comparisons. Moreover, ADDTREE lends itself readily to an interpretation in terms of hierarchical cluster structure, whereas it is difficult to interpret SSA's di mensions. ADDTREE'S close fit to the data and its co herence of presentation make it a convenient means of representing tests and items.
AB - Factor-analytic techniques and multidimensional scaling models are the traditional ways of representing the interrelations among tests and items. Both can be classified as geometric approaches. This study at tempted to broaden the scope of models traditionally used, and to apply an additive tree model (ADDTREE) that belongs to the family of network models. Correla tion matrices were obtained from three studies and were analyzed using two representation models: Smallest Space Analysis (ssA), which is a multidimen sional scaling model, and ADDTREE. The results of both analyses were compared for the two criteria of goodness of fit and interpretability. To enable a com parison with the more traditional factor-analytic ap proach, the data were also subjected to principal com ponents analyses. ADDTREE fared better in both comparisons. Moreover, ADDTREE lends itself readily to an interpretation in terms of hierarchical cluster structure, whereas it is difficult to interpret SSA's di mensions. ADDTREE'S close fit to the data and its co herence of presentation make it a convenient means of representing tests and items.
KW - ADDTREE
KW - Smallest Space Analy sis
KW - additive trees
KW - factor analysis
KW - hierarchical cluster ing
KW - multidimensional scaling
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84970701249&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/014662169001400102
DO - 10.1177/014662169001400102
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:84970701249
SN - 0146-6216
VL - 14
SP - 13
EP - 28
JO - Applied Psychological Measurement
JF - Applied Psychological Measurement
IS - 1
ER -