Multidimensional Scaling

Advance Statistics
CPS510D
Dr. Carlo Magno
Counseling and Educational Psychology Department
De La Salle University-Manila
Multidimensional Scaling
(MDS)
 Measures of proximity between pairs of
objects.
 Proximity measure – index over pairs of
objects that quantifies the degree to
which the two object are alike.
 Measure of similarity – correspond to
stimulus pairs that are alike or close in
proximity.
 Measure of dissimilarity – correspond to
stimulus pairs that are least alike or far in
proximity.
MDS
 Use:
◦ When our information is an assessment of the
relative proximity or similarity between pairs of
objects in the data set.
 Goal:
◦ Use information about relative proximity to create
a map of appropriate dimensionality such that the
distances in the map closely correspond to the
proximities used to create it.
 Consideration:
◦ The coordinate locations of the objects are
interval scaled variables that can be used in
subsequent analysis.
Approaches of MDS
 Proximities between pairs of objects
from the same set.
◦ Metric MDS
◦ Nonmetric MDS
 Individual differences scaling
 Proximities between objects from
disjoint sets
◦ Unfolding model
Metric MDS
 Proximity between pairs of objects
reflect the actual physical distances.
 Judgment of the respondents’
proximity using well calibrated
instruments.
 Level of measurement: ratio
 Ex. Actual distances of one city to
another.
Example of Proximities
Manila Hong Kong Singapore Korea

Manila 0
Hong Kong 1 0
Singapore 4 5 0
Korea 4.5 4 8 0
Configuration of distances
Scatterplot 2D
Final Conf iguration, dimension 2 v s. dimension 3
0.8
Singapore

0.6

0.4
Dimension 3

0.2

Manila
0.0

-0.2 HongKong

-0.4
Korea

-0.6
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Dimension 2
 Nonmetric MDS
 Perceived similarity of different stimuli judged on a
scale that is assumed ordinal in nature.
 Level of measurement: interval, ratio
 Steps:
◦ 1. Choose the number of dimensions
◦ 2. Plot the configurations
◦ 3. Calculate the distances
◦ 4. Achieve monotonic correspondence between
actual distance and dissimilarities.
◦ 5. Reduce stress
 People’s Judgment on the
similarity of negative emotions
ASAR BUWISIT GALIT INGGIT INIS MUHI NGITNGIT

ASAR 0

BUWISIT 3.867 0

GALIT 5.036 4.872 0

INGGIT 6.313 6.524 7.005 0

INIS 3.658 3.646 4.82 6.093 0

MUHI 5.829 5.926 4.339 6.563 5.537 0

NGITNGIT 4.867 4.581 4.943 6.513 4.602 5.867 0

15 negative emotions were judged in the study

Step 2
Configuration of the negative
emotions
Scatterplot 2D
Final Conf iguration, dimension 2 v s. dimension 3
1.4
GALIT
1.2

1.0

0.8
ASAR
0.6
BUWISIT INGGIT TAMPO
0.4
Dimension 3

0.2 SUY A Y AMOT

0.0
NGITNGIT POOT
-0.2 SUKLAM

-0.4 SELOS INIS

MUHI
-0.6
PIKON SAMANGLOOB
-0.8

-1.0
-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Dimension 2
Step 3
Calculated distances of negative
emotions
Estimates are calculated Eucledian distances
ASAR BUWISIT GALIT INGGIT INIS MUHI NGITNGI
T

ASAR 0.00

BUWISIT 1.57 0.00

GALIT 2.42 1.16 0.00

INGGIT 1.66 0.89 0.82 0.00

INIS 2.88 2.64 1.94 1.75 0.00

MUHI 0.80 1.09 1.67 0.87 2.18 0.00

NGITNGI
1.09 2.15 2.52 1.72 2.18 1.05 0.00
T
Step 4
Achieving monotonic
correspondence Shepard Diagram
Distances and D-Hats v s. Data
2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8
Distances/D-Hats

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0
Data
Step 4

Stress Estimates
 STRESS
 Goodness of fit of the configuration
 The larger the difference between the
actual distance (d)and the transformed dˆ
distance ( ) in the monotone curve, the
greater the stress, the poorer the fit.
 Raw stress = 13.94786;
 Alienation = .2470421
 D-hat: (dˆ ) Raw stress = 8.131408;
 Stress = .1901042
Step 5
Distances in final configuration
To reduce stress (adjustments)
ASAR BUWISIT GALIT INGGIT INIS MUHI NGITNGI
T

ASAR 0.00

BUWISIT 2.05 0.00

GALIT 1.27 1.19 0.00

INGGIT 1.18 0.94 0.69 0.00

INIS 1.75 2.26 2.12 1.59 0.00

MUHI 1.92 1.16 1.81 1.19 1.79 0.00

NGITNGI
1.77 1.36 1.75 1.37 2.39 0.90 0.00
T
Step 4

Adjusted STRESS
 D-star: Raw stress = 14.50918;
 Alienation = .2518842
 D-hat: Raw stress = 7.887925;
 Stress = .1872363
How many dimensions?
Final Configuration (Data-mds 3D) D-star: Raw stress =
14.50918; Alienation = .2518842 D-hat: Raw stress =
7.887925; Stress = .1872363
DIM. 1 DIM. 2 DIM. 3
ASAR -0.79737 -0.572371 0.558761
BUWISIT 1.07104 0.291474 0.551326
GALIT 0.02729 0.287986 1.147567
INGGIT 0.10695 0.257840 0.407289
INIS -1.03424 0.429567 -0.681523
MUHI 0.51738 0.108730 -0.620473
NGITNGIT 0.85552 -0.529090 -0.596416
PIKON 0.06820 -0.838535 -0.504953
POOT -0.00772 -0.984225 0.321472
SAMANGLOOB 0.43138 0.888015 -0.557057
SELOS -0.11607 -0.125611 -0.463976
SUKLAM -0.85576 -0.229485 -0.266352
SUYA 0.47404 -0.388411 0.278249
TAMPO -0.58434 0.243385 0.381489
YAMOT -0.15632 1.160731 0.044598
Individual differences scaling
model
The number (m) subjects each judge
similarities or dissimilarities of all pairs
of n objects leading to m matrices.
mxnxn
 Father’s Involvement in their
grade school and college child’s
schooling Scatterplot 2D
Final Conf iguration, dimension 1 v s. dimension 2
Scatterplot 2D
Final Conf iguration, dimension 1 v s. dimension 2
1.2 dillitante 1.2
generative
1.0 1.0

0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
Dimension 2

Dimension 2
0.2
0.2
0.0
procreator generative procreator
0.0
-0.2

-0.4 -0.2

-0.6 -0.4 dillitante

determinative
-0.8 -0.6 determinative
-1.0
-0.8
-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Dimension 1
Dimension 1

Father’s involvement for the grade Father’s involvement for the

school child college child
STRESS=.000 STRESS=.000
 Mother’s Involvement in their
grade school and college child’s
schooling
Scatterplot 2D Scatterplot 2D
Final Conf iguration, dimension 1 v s. dimension 2 Final Conf iguration, dimension 1 v s. dimension 2
1.0 0.8
permissive
0.8 Controlling
0.6
0.6

0.4 0.4 Autonomy

loving indifferent
0.2 Autonomy
indifferent 0.2
Dimension 2

Dimension 2
0.0
0.0
-0.2

-0.4 -0.2 loving

-0.6
-0.4
-0.8
permissive
-1.0 controlling -0.6

-1.2
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 -0.8
-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Dimension 1
Dimension 1

Mother’s involvement for the Mother’s involvement for the

grade school child college child
STRESS=.000 STRESS=.000
Unfolding Model
 To map the person with the object
rated.
 Determine the distance of the person
with the object rated.
 The closer the object rated with the
person’s preference the more
simmilar.
Distance estimates
McDo Jollibee p1 p2 p3
McDo 0 2 5 3 2
Jollibee 5 0 4 4 2
p1 5 4 0 1 2.5
p2 3 4 1 0 1.5
p3 2 2 2.5 1.5 0
Means 0 0 0 0 0
Std. Dev. 0 0 0 0 0
No. of
3
Cases
Matrix 2
 Configuration
Scatterplot 2D
Final Conf iguration, dimension 1 v s. dimension 2
1.4

1.2
p2
1.0

0.8

0.6
Dimension 2

0.4

0.2

0.0
Jollibee p1
-0.2

-0.4
McDo p3
-0.6
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Dimension 1
Shephard Plot
Shepard Diagram
Distances and A D-Hats v s. Data
2.4
A
2.2
A
A
2.0

1.8 A

A
A
Distances/D-HatsData

1.6

1.4 A

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6
A
A

0.4
A

0.2
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Data

D-star: Raw stress = 0.000000; Alienation = 0.000000

D-hat: Raw stress = 0.000000; Stress = 0.000000
Proximity measures
 Category rating technique-the subject
is presented a stimulus pair.
 The respondents task is to indicate
how similar or dissimilar they think the
two stimuli are by checking the
appropriate category along along the
rating scale.
 Example
Judge how similar or dissimilar are the
following universities:
Highly Highly
similar dissimilar
DLSU: ADMU 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
DLSU: UP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
DLSU: UST 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ADMU: UP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ADMU: UST 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
UP: UST 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8