IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/psycho/v65y2000i2p233-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Remarks on the identifiability of thurstonian ranking models: Case V, case III, or neither?

Author

Listed:
  • Rung-Ching Tsai

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Rung-Ching Tsai, 2000. "Remarks on the identifiability of thurstonian ranking models: Case V, case III, or neither?," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 65(2), pages 233-240, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:65:y:2000:i:2:p:233-240
    DOI: 10.1007/BF02294376
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF02294376
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF02294376?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1978. "A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 403-426, March.
    2. Frederick Mosteller, 1951. "Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: I. The least squares solution assuming equal standard deviations and equal correlations," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(1), pages 3-9, March.
    3. Wai Chan & Peter Bentler, 1998. "Covariance structure analysis of ordinal ipsative data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 369-399, December.
    4. R. Luce, 1977. "Thurstone's discriminal processes fifty years later," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 42(4), pages 461-489, December.
    5. Henry Brady, 1989. "Factor and ideal point analysis for interpersonally incomparable data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 54(2), pages 181-202, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maydeu-Olivares, Albert, 2002. "Limited information estimation and testing of Thurstonian models for preference data," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 467-483, July.
    2. Rung-Ching Tsai, 2003. "Remarks on the identifiability of thurstonian paired comparison models under multiple judgment," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 361-372, September.
    3. Tsai, Rung-Ching & Bockenholt, Ulf, 2002. "Two-level linear paired comparison models: estimation and identifiability issues," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 429-449, July.
    4. Duncan Fong & Sunghoon Kim & Zhe Chen & Wayne DeSarbo, 2016. "A Bayesian Multinomial Probit MODEL FOR THE ANALYSIS OF PANEL CHOICE DATA," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(1), pages 161-183, March.
    5. Steven Andrew Culpepper & James Joseph Balamuta, 2017. "A Hierarchical Model for Accuracy and Choice on Standardized Tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 820-845, September.
    6. Timo Bechger & Huub Verstralen & Norman Verhelst, 2002. "Equivalent linear logistic test models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 67(1), pages 123-136, March.
    7. Wim J. Linden & Michelle D. Barrett, 2016. "Linking Item Response Model Parameters," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(3), pages 650-673, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ulf Böckenholt, 2006. "Thurstonian-Based Analyses: Past, Present, and Future Utilities," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 615-629, December.
    2. Maydeu-Olivares, Albert, 2002. "Limited information estimation and testing of Thurstonian models for preference data," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 467-483, July.
    3. Vredin Johansson, Maria & Heldt, Tobias & Johansson, Per, 2006. "The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 507-525, July.
    4. Ichimura, Hidehiko & Thompson, T. Scott, 1998. "Maximum likelihood estimation of a binary choice model with random coefficients of unknown distribution," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 269-295, June.
    5. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    6. Erik Stam & Roy Thurik & Peter van der Zwan, 2010. "Entrepreneurial exit in real and imagined markets," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(4), pages 1109-1139, August.
    7. Toşa, Cristian & Sato, Hitomi & Morikawa, Takayuki & Miwa, Tomio, 2018. "Commuting behavior in emerging urban areas: Findings of a revealed-preferences and stated-intentions survey in Cluj-Napoca, Romania," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 78-93.
    8. Haaijer, Marinus E., 1996. "Predictions in conjoint choice experiments : the x-factor probit model," Research Report 96B22, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    9. Steven Berry & James Levinsohn & Ariel Pakes, 2004. "Differentiated Products Demand Systems from a Combination of Micro and Macro Data: The New Car Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(1), pages 68-105, February.
    10. Bingley Paul & Walker Ian & Zhu Yu, 2005. "Education, Work and Wages in the UK," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 6(3), pages 395-414, August.
    11. Dario Pozzoli & Marco Ranzani, 2010. "Participation and sector selection in Nicaragua," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 591-610.
    12. DavidP. Myatt & Chris Wallace, 2009. "Evolution, Teamwork and Collective Action: Production Targets in the Private Provision of Public Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 61-90, January.
    13. Philip A. Haile & Ali Hortaçsu & Grigory Kosenok, 2008. "On the Empirical Content of Quantal Response Equilibrium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 180-200, March.
    14. Bergtold, Jason S. & Duffy, Patricia A. & Hite, Diane & Raper, Randy L., 2012. "Demographic and Management Factors Affecting the Adoption and Perceived Yield Benefit of Winter Cover Crops in the Southeast," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(1), pages 1-18, February.
    15. Head, Keith & Ries, John & Swenson, Deborah, 1995. "Agglomeration benefits and location choice: Evidence from Japanese manufacturing investments in the United States," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 223-247, May.
    16. Amit Gandhi & Jeremy T. Fox, 2009. "Identifying Heterogeneity in Economic Choice and Selection Models Using Mixtures," 2009 Meeting Papers 165, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    17. Siddhartha Chib & Edward Greenberg & Yuxin Chen, 1998. "MCMC Methods for Fitting and Comparing Multinomial Response Models," Econometrics 9802001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 06 May 1998.
    18. Jumbe, Charles B.L. & Angelsen, Arild, 2011. "Modeling choice of fuelwood source among rural households in Malawi: A multinomial probit analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 732-738, September.
    19. Peter Davis & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2014. "The flexible coefficient multinomial logit (FC-MNL) model of demand for differentiated products," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 32-63, March.
    20. Friederike Paetz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2017. "The benefits of incorporating utility dependencies in finite mixture probit models," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(3), pages 793-819, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:65:y:2000:i:2:p:233-240. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.