This article was downloaded by: [UGR-BTCA Gral Universitaria], [J.

Fernando Vera]
On: 31 January 2014, At: 09:35
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary

Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hsem20

A Structural Equation Multidimensional Scaling Model

for One-Mode Asymmetric Dissimilarity Data
a b
J. Fernando Vera & Chiristian D. Rivera
a
University of Granada , Spain
b
University of Los Andes , Venezuela
Published online: 31 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: J. Fernando Vera & Chiristian D. Rivera (2014) A Structural Equation Multidimensional Scaling Model for
One-Mode Asymmetric Dissimilarity Data, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21:1, 54-62

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.856696

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21: 54–62, 2014
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1070-5511 print / 1532-8007 online
DOI: 10.1080/10705511.2014.856696

A Structural Equation Multidimensional Scaling

Model for One-Mode Asymmetric Dissimilarity Data
J. Fernando Vera1 and Chiristian D. Rivera2
Downloaded by [UGR-BTCA Gral Universitaria], [J. Fernando Vera] at 09:35 31 January 2014

1
University of Granada, Spain
2
University of Los Andes,Venezuela

A multidimensional scaling (MDS) model is proposed for 2-way 1-mode asymmetric dissimi-
larity data, to estimate the unknown symmetric subjacent dissimilarity matrix while the objects
are represented in a low-dimensional space. In the context of least squares MDS allowing
transformations, and considering both triangular parts of the asymmetric dissimilarity matrix
as effects of the unobserved symmetric dissimilarities, an alternating estimation procedure is
proposed in which the unknown symmetric dissimilarity matrix is estimated in a covariance
structure framework. Real and artificial data are analyzed to illustrate the proposed procedure.

Keywords: asymmetry, dissimilarity, effect indicator, multidimensional scaling, STRESS

structural equation model

For one-mode proximity data multidimensional scaling
(MDS) usually states a monotone relation between dissim-
ilarities and distances, according to which the symmetry
constitutes an important subjacent hypothesis in the formula-
tion of the model. Nevertheless there are practical situations
for which the symmetry is not manifest when proximity data
are compiled, and the MDS subjacent ideal relation between
dissimilarities and distances is then weakened. Since the
early work of Kruskal (1964), several procedures have been
developed to deal with asymmetry in MDS.
One sort of model (not restricted to the MDS context) is
based on the decomposition of the proximity matrix into two
components, one symmetric and the other skew-symmetric,
as discussed extensively in Zielman and Heiser (1996).
Some procedures considered represent the symmetric com-
ponent by MDS, discussing separate specialized visualiza-
tion techniques for the skew-symmetric component through
the singular value decomposition of the skew-symmetric
matrix (e.g., Constantine & Gower, 1978; Gower, 1977).
Other such decomposition procedures simultaneously deal
with the symmetric and the skew-symmetric parts of the
data matrix by applying the spectral decomposition of a
Correspondence should be addressed to J. Fernando Vera, Department
of Statistics and O.R., Faculty of Sciences, University of Granada, 18071
Granada, Spain. E-mail: jfvera@ugr.es
Hermitian matrix (Escoufier & Ground, 1980), modifying
the distances with a skew-symmetric form (Weeks & Bentler,
1982), embedding skew-symmetries as drift vectors into
MDS plots (Borg, 1979; Borg & Groenen, 1995), repre-
senting objects by circles with different radii (Okada &
Imaizumi, 1987), or representing the asymmetric structure
in the MDS configuration derived from the symmetric part
using a vector model (Yadohisa & Niki, 2000), among other
approaches. See Borg and Groenen (2005, chap. 23) or Saito
and Yadohisa (2005, chap 3) for an extensive overview of
this kind of asymmetric MDS model.
In addition to the proceding procedures, other asymmet-
ric MDS models in the context for one-mode dissimilarity
data are based on the direct analysis of the raw data matrix.
In a nonmetric context, an approach suggested by Kruskal
(1964) is based on regarding the asymmetry as due to errors;
therefore the data are symmetrized, the STRESS formula-
tion is extended to all matrix entries, or an MDS model is
adjusted to the upper and lower triangular parts of the dis-
similarity matrix separately. Another approach assumes the
asymmetry to be of interest in its own right, and several
procedures have been suggested in which the distances are
generalized, or based on extensions of scalar product mod-
els, among other possibilities (see Saito & Yadohisa [2005,
chap. 4] for a further description of these models).
In this article we adopt a different perspective from the
structural equation modeling (SEM) framework, by which
 AN SEMDS MODEL FOR ONE-MODE ASYMMETRIC DISSIMILARITY DATA
the asymmetry is taken into account as an outcome of
measurement errors in MDS, so that asymmetric proximities
are fully represented by distances between points in an
MDS space. Thus, the upper and lower triangular parts of
the observed asymmetric dissimilarity matrix are assumed
to be imperfect measurements of an unobserved subjacent
symmetric dissimilarity matrix (or latent matrix), to which
each triangular matrix (or effect indicator) is linearly related.
A typical situation that can be considered under this perspec-
tive appears when asymmetric dissimilarities are achieved,
for example, from confusion or same–different error-type
experiments as in Miller and Nicely (1955), Rothkopf,
Downloaded by [UGR-BTCA Gral Universitaria], [J. Fernando Vera] at 09:35 31 January 2014
(1957) or Wang and Bilger (1973). (See Zielman and Heiser,
1996, for other illustrative examples). In this situation,
the principal aim of the SEM stage is to deal with the
unknown symmetric dissimilarity matrix that best explains
the observed variability in a covariance structure estimation
problem. The effective incorporation of the error terms in the
model is an important benefit derived from the covariance
structure methodology for the parameter estimation, which
helps improve the MDS estimated configuration.
A least squares alternating estimation procedure using
SMACOF (de Leeuw & Heiser, 1980) is developed such
that in each iteration the MDS configuration is attained, and
the unknown symmetric dissimilarities are estimated in a
covariance structural problem (see, e.g., Vera, Macías, &
Heiser, 2009a, 2009b, for such combined MDS procedures
in a classification context).
THE MODEL
Let us consider a set of n objects, O = {oi |i = 1, . . . , n},
denoted by  = (δij ), i, j = 1 . . . n, an observed asymmet-
ric matrix of dissimilarities, and where 1 and 2 denote
the upper and lower triangular parts, respectively, of  writ-
ten in vector form. In this context, both triangular parts of 
are considered as error observed measurements that are lin-
early related to an unknown symmetric dissimilarity matrix
∗ = (δij∗ ). The aim of MDS is to find a configuration, X,
of n points xi , i = 1, . . . n, usually in a Euclidean space of
dimension K, that best approximates the unknown symmet-
ric matrix of dissimilarities ∗ by means of the matrix of
Euclidean distances D(X) = (dij (X)) given by
 K 1/2
 and σe2 and   are the variance of e and the covariance matrix
dij (X) = (xik − xjk )2 . of the elements of , respectively.
k=1
Thus, the MDS problem can be formulated in a least squares
framework, by minimizing,
 2
STRESS = dˆij − dij (X) ,
i<j
55
where in this context, the dˆij values, i, j = 1, . . . , n, represent
symmetric dissimilarities, or in general transformed dissim-
ilarities also referred to as disparities (see Vera, Heiser,
& Murillo, 2007, for a global MDS algorithm in any
Minkowski metric).
Because the symmetric subjacent dissimilarity matrix ∗
is a priori unknown in the asymmetric MDS framework, the
matrix entries arranged in vector form can be considered ele-
ments of a latent variable denoted by δ ∗ , and the covariance
structure methodology can be employed for their estimation.
If only one unobserved dependent η variable and one
unobserved independent ξ variable are considered, the gen-
eral structural equation model can be formulated as
η = γξ + ζ, (2)
where the γ coefficient represents the direct effect of the ξ
variable on the η variable, and ζ is a random disturbance term
or error in the equation, which is assumed to be uncorrelated
with ξ .
In the particular situation where only one indicator y is
linearly related to a latent dependent variable, the general
measurement model can be expressed by
y = λy η + e, (3)
x = λx ξ + , (4)
where x = (x1 , . . . , xp ) are indicator variables of the latent
independent ξ variable. The coefficient λy and the vector
λx = (λ1 , . . . , λp ) represent the expected effects of η on y
and of ξ on x, respectively, and the variable e and the vector
of variables , are measurement error terms assumed to be
uncorrelated with each other, and also with the latent vari-
ables η and ξ . Without loss of generality, it is assumed that
the error variables have mean zero and that the x, y, η, and
ξ are written as deviation scores. Hence, denoting the vec-
tor of parameters of the model by θ , the covariance structure
matrix adopts the expression,
 
λ2y (γ 2 σξ2 + σζ2 ) + σe2
 E (θ) = , (5)
γ λy σξ2 λx σξ2 λx λx +  
where σξ2 and σζ2 are the variances of ξ and ζ , respectively,
Therefore, when transformations are allowed in the MDS
framework, and following the usual covariance structure esti-
mation methodology, it can be assumed that the unknown
distances arranged in vector form constitute a latent variable
denoted by d∗ , which can be measured through a coeffi-
cient λd using an indicator variable d(X), the values of which
(1) are obtained from a previous estimation of the configuration
matrix X.
 56 VERA AND RIVERA
Hence, an effect relationship between the latent vari-
able δ ∗ and the observed indicator variables δ 1 and δ 2
(corresponding to the two triangular parts of the observed
dissimilarities, suitably arranged in vector form) can be sum-
marized using the structural parameters λ1 and λ2 . Thus, in
terms of a covariance structure model, the problem can be
formulated by means of the system of structural equations
given by
d∗ = b δ ∗ + ζ (6)
d(X) = λd d∗ + e
Downloaded by [UGR-BTCA Gral Universitaria], [J. Fernando Vera] at 09:35 31 January 2014
(7)
δ1 = λ1 δ ∗ + 1 (8)
δ2 = λ2 δ ∗ + 2 . (9)
Equation 6 models the structural spatial relation between the
unknown distances D∗ (measured by D(X)) and the unknown
symmetric dissimilarities ∗ , denoted as the latent variables
d∗ and δ ∗ , respectively. In the MDS framework this relation
can be perceived as a disparity relation with an error term,
where the distances are determined by an alternating estima-
tion procedure. Coefficient b is a regression coefficient that
describes the effects of the dissimilarities on the distances,
and ζ is the error term referring to the spatial relationship
of mean zero and variance σζ2 , which is uncorrelated with
∗ , where b is also estimated in the SEM
δ ∗ . Thus, D = b̂
phase, represents the optimal disparities in MDS. After the
disparities are estimated, the distances can be estimated by
considering them as predictors of the symmetric disparities
in an alternating estimation procedure using the Guttman
transform (de Leeuw & Heiser, 1980).
Equation 7 shows the measurement model for d∗ con-
sidering d(X) as the sole indicator. To solve the inherent
identification problem that arises when only one indicator
is considered, we express the error variance as proportional
to the variance of the symmetric dissimilarity matrix. Thus,
σe2 = κσd(X)
2
where κ is a number between zero and one. The
value of κ can be predetermined or established on the basis
of the decrease in the STRESS value for each iteration in the
estimation algorithm, and the value of λd is fixed at one.
Equations 8 and 9 show the measurement model for δ ∗
(measured by δ 1 and δ 2 ), in which the two triangular parts of
 are considered as effect indicators of the unobserved sym-
metric dissimilarity matrix ∗ . The error terms 1 and 2 are
assumed to be uncorrelated with each other and with δ ∗ and
e, and e is assumed to be uncorrelated with d∗ . In addition, it
is assumed that the error terms 1 and 2 have the same vari-
ance denoted by σ 2 , which is coherent with the usual MDS
framework.
To have globally identified the model, the scale for δ ∗
is set by assigning the value of σδ2∗ = 1, and the num-
ber of nonredundant elements in  is p(p + 1)/2 = 6,
where p is the number of observed variables. Thus, θ =
(b, λ1 , λ2 , σ 2 , σζ2 ) , and the covariance structure of the effect
indicators model can be written as
 
b2 + σζ2 + kσd(X)
2
 E (θ) = , (10)
bλx λx λx + 
where λx = (λ1 , λ2 ) , and  = σ 2 I denotes the diagonal
covariance matrix of the vector . From this, it is straight-
forward to show that the model is algebraically identified
(see Appendix) and the values of the symmetric dissimilarity
matrix ∗ expressed in vector form can be given from the
usual regression method of factor score estimation by
 −1 
∗ =
 λx  ˜ ,
 (11)
˜ = [δ1 δ2 ] is the n(n − 1)/2 × 2 block matrix con-
where 
formed by the values of the observed dissimilarities, λx =
−1

(λ̂1 , λ̂2 ) , and  denotes the inverse matrix of the estimated

values of λx
λx +  .
AN ALTERNATE SEM–MDS ALGORITHM
In the usual least squares MDS framework, two main alter-
nate estimation phases are involved when disparities are
taken into account. In the first, the parameters of the model
are estimated assuming the disparities are known; second,
the disparities are estimated when the remaining parame-
ters are known. This procedure continues such that at the
end, the loss function (usually the STRESS) is minimized.
Then, the aim in the proposed least squares ratio MDS model
is to determine a configuration X∗ such that the distances
dij∗ = dij (X∗ ) approach as much as possible the symmetric
disparities d̂ij∗ = b̂δij∗ , by minimizing
 ∗ 2
STRESS = dˆij −dˆij (X ∗ ) . (12)
i<j
It is well known that in the presence of unobserved vari-
ables, or measurement errors in the regression analysis, the
SEM methodology achieves solutions that are at least as
good as those obtained by the usual least squares proce-
dure (Bentler, 1983; Joreskög, 1978). Thus, for the overall
estimation procedure in this context, the disparities can be
estimated in the covariance structure framework in an alter-
nating estimation procedure that minimizes the STRESS
using SMACOF (de Leeuw & Heiser, 1980); from the pre-
vious values of the parameter estimators, the configuration
is first estimated by minimizing the STRESS (Equation 12)
from the estimated disparities, and then the values of the
symmetric dissimilarity matrix  ∗ are estimated in a struc-
tural equation model of three observed variables, assuming
the configuration X and thus the distance matrix D(X)
 AN SEMDS MODEL FOR ONE-MODE ASYMMETRIC DISSIMILARITY DATA 57

is known, such that the STRESS (Equation 12) is also 3. In the SEM phase, the symmetric dissimilarities  ∗ (r)
decreased. and the value of b̂(r) are then obtained by minimiz-
At the rth iteration, the distance matrix D(
(r−1)
X ) is ing (Equation 13), using the values of 1 , 2 , and
of the last given distances D(
known in the SEM phase, for which the sample covariance (r−1)
X ). A common
matrix S(r) can be written as trust-region-reflective algorithm for nonlinear least-
⎡ ⎤ squares problem can be employed (see, e.g., Moré
VAR (D(
(r−1)
X ))
& Sorensen, 1983, or Coleman, Branch, & Grace,
= ⎣ COV (D( ⎦.
(r−1)
S(r) X ), 1 ) VAR (1 )
1999 for further details) to minimize (Equation 13), or
COV (D(
(r−1)
X ), 2 ) COV (1 , 2 ) VAR (2 )
(13) equivalently,

1 (r) (r) 2
Because no probabilistic assumption is made for the dis- F(θ ) = (S11 − θ12 − θ5 − κσd(2 X̂(r−1) ) S11 )
Downloaded by [UGR-BTCA Gral Universitaria], [J. Fernando Vera] at 09:35 31 January 2014

similarity data, the unweighted least squares (ULS) method 2

is employed in this context (Finney & DiStefano, 2006) for (r) 1 (r)
the SEM parameter estimation problem. Using the estimated + (S21 − θ1 θ2 )2 + (S22 − θ22 − θ4 )2
2 (16)
parameter values, the symmetric dissimilarities are estimated
(r) (r)
using the usual ordinary least squares regression method, + (S31 − θ1 θ3 ) +
2
(S32 − θ2 θ3 ) 2

which provides the highest correlations between a factor

score and the corresponding factor (Grice, 2001). Both esti- 1 (r)
+ (S33 − θ32 − θ4 )2 .
mation procedures are in consonance with the minimization 2
of the STRESS in an ordinary least squares regression prob-
Then, the optimal disparities
(r)
lem given the estimated disparities. Thus, the aim in this D are calculated and
SEM phase is to minimize the loss function given by  (r)2
normalized such that ij dˆij = n(n − 1)/2, to avoid
1  (r) 2  trivial solutions; the STRESS in the rth iteration is then
F(θ (r) ) = tr S − (θ (r) ) , (14) calculated.
2 4. The difference between two consecutive STRESS val-
which provides a consistent estimator of θ (Bollen, 1989; ues is obtained and the algorithm returns to the MDS
Browne, 1982). Then, the estimation process continues phase until the convergence criterion is attained.
to achieve the overall convergence of the STRESS.
The proposed structural equation multidimensional scaling The algorithm stops if the overall convergence criterion is
(SEMDS) procedure can be summarized as follows: achieved; that is, if the difference between two consecutive
values of the STRESS is less than a small positive constant
1. Using the average of 1 and 2 , the initial con- or when a maximum number of iterations is achieved.
figuration X(0) is achieved by classical MDS. Then,
the optimal symmetric dissimilarity matrix  ∗ (0) and
coefficient b̂(0) are calculated in the SEM framework ILLUSTRATIVE APPLICATIONS
by minimizing (Equation 13). The initial disparities

D(0) are then calculated and normalized such that To illustrate the proposed algorithm, it was implemented in
 (0)2 MatLab,1 working on an Intel Core i5 computer with 4 GB of
ˆ = n(n − 1)/2; the initial STRESS value is
ij d ij
calculated using Equation 1. RAM under Microsoft Windows 7. A maximum of 1000 iter-
ations or a difference in subsequent STRESS values of less
2. In the rth iteration, the configuration
(r)
X is estimated
than 10−7 was employed as the overall convergence criterion,
in the optimal configuration phase by the Guttman
together with the iterative cycle in the SEM phase in which
transform (see, e.g., Borg & Groenen, 2005) from
Equation 13 is minimized.

D
(r−1)
. To test the performance of the model, 8100 artificial
data sets were obtained by generating true distances from
1
X = B( )
(r) (r−1) (r−1)
X X , (15) a configuration and by adding a random error to the given
n distances as shown in Equation 8 and 9, following a method-
ology similar to that proposed by Weeks and Bentler (1979).
 the elements of matrix B are given by bii =
where
First, a configuration matrix was attained by randomly gener-
− bij , and
j=i ating n points from a uniform distribution in two dimensions,
⎧ (r−1) for sizes of n equal to 15, 25, and 50. For each configuration,
⎨ dˆij for i = j, and dji (
(r−1)
⎪ X ) = 0,
bij = ,
⎪ (r−1)
⎩ dij X
0, for i = j, and dji (
(r−1)
X ) = 0. 1 The program and data sets are available on request.
 58 VERA AND RIVERA
the Euclidean distances between the rows were calculated
and organized in vector form, representing samples of sizes
105, 300, and 1225, respectively. Errors were drawn from a
normal distribution with a mean of zero and variance pro-
portional to the variance of the true distances of p equal
to .05, .10, .15, .25, .50, 1.00, 1.50, 2.00, and 3.00. For
cases in which this methodology produced negative values,
a constant was added such that the smallest value was zero,
and the whole process was repeated 100 times for replica-
tions. The factor loadings λ1 and λ2 were set to (0.5,0.5),
(0.3,0.7) and (1,2), and the 8100 data sets generated were
analyzed with the proposed SEMDS procedure. All data sets
Downloaded by [UGR-BTCA Gral Universitaria], [J. Fernando Vera] at 09:35 31 January 2014
were also analyzed using SMACOF, considering the corre-
sponding averaged matrix given by  = (1 + 2 )/2, as the
source symmetric dissimilarities.
For each simulated data set, the correlation coefficient
between each pair of perturbed distances 1 and 2 was cal-
culated, and for the given configuration, the values of the
normalized STRESS and of the scaled Procrustes statistic
for the recovered and the original configurations were calcu-
lated. Correlation values for each pair of factor loadings (λ1 ,
λ2 ), and each error variance level p were averaged across
replications corresponding to all values of n. As expected,
for lower values of λ1 and λ2 , high correlation values were
found for low error variance levels up to p = .10, but for the
higher values of factor loadings, the correlation increased for
all values of p, as shown in Figure 1.
The averaged differences between the results obtained by
the SMACOF algorithm when applied to the (1 + 2 )/2
symmetric matrix, and the proposed SEMDS algorithm
FIGURE 1 Averaged correlation values between the simulated δ 1 and δ 2
across all replications and sizes, for each pair of factor loadings and error
variance level. (Figure appears in color online.)
when applied to the asymmetric data sets, in terms of the
STRESS and of the Procrustes goodness-of-fit value, are
summarized in Figure 2, for each error variance term and fac-
tor loadings. Negative values for these differences reflect the
superior performance of the proposed SEMDS procedure,
compared with the MDS analysis of the symmetrized dissim-
ilarities for the simulated data sets. In general, the SEMDS
procedure correctly recovers the original factor loadings in
all situations, and for large data sets, it produces the best
results for all factor loadings and error levels both in terms
of STRESS and of the Procrustes goodness-of-fit criterion
between the recovered and the original configurations.
For smaller data sets and in terms of the STRESS crite-
rion, the two procedures achieved similar results for equal
factor loadings (0.5,0.5) up to p = .5, corresponding to an
averaged correlation coefficient of .32. For factor loadings
(0.3,0.7), the SEMDS procedure achieved better results up
to p = .5 for n = 15, corresponding to an average correla-
tion coefficient of .27, and of p = 2 for n = 2, corresponding
to an average correlation coefficient of .087. For the remain-
ing major error levels (and lower correlation values) in each
situation, the SMACOF procedure produced better results
for the smaller data sets in terms of the STRESS criterion.
Nevertheless, in terms of the Procrustes goodness-of-fit crite-
rion, the results were quite different; in all situations, except
for the combination of n = 2, p = 2 and factor loadings
(0.5,0.5), the proposed SEMDS procedure achieved the best
configuration.
To illustrate the performance of the proposed model for a
real data set, the classic Miller and Nicely (1955) data of per-
ceptual confusions between 16 English consonant phonemes
were used. In this test, female subjects listened to female
speakers reading consonant–vowel syllables formed by pair-
ing the consonants /b,d,g,p,t,k,v,D,z,Z,f,θ,s,S,m,n/ with the
vowel /a/ (as in father), and the subjects were required to
write down the consonant they heard after each syllable was
spoken. The confusions or errors of identification matrices
were compiled under 17 different experimental conditions.
The first four 16 × 16 tables given summarize the data
obtained when noise-masking conditions produced varying
speech-to-noise (S/N) ratios, with the addition of random
noise at different levels. Only the first of these four tables
is analyzed here, because several entries were zeros for the
remaining three tables.
The original similarities were transformed into dissimilar-
ities by considering the normalization procedure described
by Hubert (1972) for this data set. Thus, conditional prob-
abilities were first estimated by dividing each entry of the
original matrix by the corresponding row sum. Then, an
asymmetric dissimilarity matrix was obtained by consider-
ing δij = 1 − sij /(max(sij ) + c), where the constant c was
selected as 0.001, to avoid zero entries, while maintaining
the absolute size of the entries (see Arabie & Soli, 1979).
Each triangular part of this asymmetric dissimilarity matrix,
1 and 2 , can be considered a different measurement of
 AN SEMDS MODEL FOR ONE-MODE ASYMMETRIC DISSIMILARITY DATA 59
Downloaded by [UGR-BTCA Gral Universitaria], [J. Fernando Vera] at 09:35 31 January 2014

FIGURE 2 Averaged difference values for the STRESS (left panels) and for the Procrustes goodness-of-fit values (right panels) between the obtained results
for SMACOF and for the proposed SEMDS algorithm for the simulated data sets, for each error variance term and pair of factor loadings.
Note. SEMDS = Structural equation multidimensional scaling; MDS = multidimensional scaling. (Figure appears in color online.)
 60 VERA AND RIVERA
∫ δδ
∫
Downloaded by [UGR-BTCA Gral Universitaria], [J. Fernando Vera] at 09:35 31 January 2014
θθ
FIGURE 3 Representation of the optimal configuration for the SEMDS
procedure (dots), and the Procrustes configuration obtained with the
SMACOF procedure when the dissimilarities were first symmetrized
(crosses). (Figure appears in color online.)
Note. SEMDS = structural equation multidimensional scaling.
an unknown and subjacent symmetric relation between the
pair of signals, comprising 120 entries. The asymmetric
dissimilarity matrix was analyzed by the proposed SEMDS
methodology, and the results obtained were compared with
those achieved by the usual SMACOF procedure for ratio
MDS when the dissimilarities were first symmetrized as
(1 + 2 )/2. For the SMACOF procedure, a raw STRESS
value of 9.0052 was found for an intercept value of b =
1.6083. For the SEMDS procedure, a lower STRESS value
of 8.8448 was found, associated with the parameter val-
ues of θ = (0.3632, 0.0970, 0.0614, 0.0158, 2.2463e − 14),
with a correlation coefficient value of 0.16 between the
two triangular parts of the asymmetric dissimilarity matrix.
Thus, the best configuration in terms of the STRESS crite-
rion was achieved by the SEMDS procedure. Furthermore,
both procedures showed differences in the given configu-
rations following a Procrustes transformation, especially in
the voiced stops and fricative consonants b, and Z, as can be
appreciated in Figure 3.
CONCLUSIONS
Asymmetry is a problematic issue that frequently arises
in measuring the relationship between a pair of objects to
be represented by MDS, as a monotone relation between
dissimilarities and distances is required. When the asym-
metry is not of interest in its own right (assuming it
appears because of error fluctuations) then the upper and
the lower triangular parts of the original asymmetric dis-
similarity matrix can be considered imperfect measurements
of an unobserved subjacent symmetric dissimilarity matrix.
In this situation, an average transformation of the two tri-
angular parts of the original matrix is usually advisable to
address object representation for one-way, one-mode data
in MDS.
In this context, we propose an MDS model allowing
transformations for asymmetric dissimilarity data, such that
the unknown symmetric dissimilarity matrix is estimated as
disparities in an SEM framework. Considering the triangular
parts of the asymmetric dissimilarity matrix as an effect
indicator that is linearly related to an unknown subjacent
symmetric dissimilarity matrix (or latent matrix), a least
squares alternating estimation procedure using SMACOF is
developed such that in each iteration, the MDS configuration
is attained while the unknown symmetric dissimilarities are
estimated in an algebraically identified covariance structural
problem.
To test the performance of the model, several artificial
data sets were generated by adding a random error to the
true Euclidean distances from a configuration, under several
conditions of error variance and data size, for a fixed pair of
factor loading values. All generated data sets were analyzed
with the proposed SEMDS procedure, and SMACOF was
also used, considering the corresponding averaged matrix
given by  = (1 + 2 )/2, as the source symmetric dis-
similarities in ratio MDS. For large data sets, the SEMDS
procedure gave the best results in all situations, both in
terms of STRESS and of the Procrustes goodness-of-fit cri-
terion for the recovered configuration. For small data sets,
the SEMDS procedure also achieved the best or at least
equally good results as those of the MDS procedure for
the symmetrized dissimilarities, for data with a high corre-
lation coefficient (larger than .35). For low correlated data
sets, and in terms of the Procrustes criterion, the proposed
SEMDS procedure also achieved the best configuration in
all situations except for n = 15, p = 2 and factor loadings of
(0.5,0.5).
The classical Miller and Nicely (1955) data of percep-
tual confusions between 16 English consonant phonemes
were also analyzed, using the data normalization proposed
by Hubert (1972). In terms of STRESS, the best con-
figuration was achieved by the SEMDS procedure when
it was applied to the asymmetric dissimilarities obtained
from the normalized data set, compared to the results pro-
duced by the SMACOF procedure for the symmetrized
dissimilarities. Both procedures showed differences in
their configurations when compared following a Procrustes
transformation.
The results obtained show that when the upper and the
lower triangular parts of an asymmetric dissimilarity matrix
can be considered imperfect measurements of an unobserved
subjacent symmetric dissimilarity matrix, the incorporation
of the error terms in the model is an important benefit
 AN SEMDS MODEL FOR ONE-MODE ASYMMETRIC DISSIMILARITY DATA
derived from the SEM methodology for parameter estima-
tion, which helps improve the estimation of the configuration
to represent the objects in a low-dimensional space using
MDS. This methodology also enables us to address the sit-
uation in which the lack of symmetry is significant, and
the unknown symmetric dissimilarity matrix is a composite
matrix, a situation that is currently being investigated by the
authors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Downloaded by [UGR-BTCA Gral Universitaria], [J. Fernando Vera] at 09:35 31 January 2014
The authors would like to thank Albert Satorra and three
anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on an earlier
draft of this article.
REFERENCES
Arabie, P., & Soli, S. D. (1979). The interface between the type
of regression and methods of collecting proximities data. In R.
Colledge & J. N. Rayner (Eds.), Multidimensional analysis of large
data sets (pp. 90–115). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Bentler, P. M. (1983). Simultaneous equation systems as moment structure
models. Journal of Econometric, 22, 13–42.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Borg, I. (1979). Ein Verfahren zur Analyse metrischer asymmetrischer
Proximitätsmatrizen. [A procedure for analyzing metric asymmetric
proximity matrices.] Archiv für Psychologie, 131, 183–194.
Borg, I., & Groenen, P. J. F. (1995). Asymmetries in multidimensional scal-
ing. In F. Faulbaum (Ed.), Softstat’95 (pp. 31–35). Stuttgart, Germany:
Lucius.
Borg, I., & Groenen, P. J. F. (2005). Modern multidimensional scaling:
Theory and applications. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Browne, M. W. (1982). Covariance strutures. In D. M. Hawkins (Ed.),
Topics in multivariate analysis (pp. 72–141). Cambridge,UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Coleman, T. F., Branch, M. A., & Grace, A. (1999). Optimization toolbox:
Users guide, Version 2. Natick, MA: The Mathworks, Inc.
Constantine, A. G., & Gower, J. C. (1978). Graphic representations of
asymmetric matrices. Applied Statistics, 27, 297–304.
de Leeuw, J., & Heiser, W. J. (1980). Multidimensional scaling with restric-
tions on the configuration. In P. R. Krishnaiah (Ed.), Multivariate analysis
(Vol. V, pp. 501–522). Amsterdam,The Netherlands: North-Holland.
Escoufier, Y., & Ground, A. (1980). Analyse factorielle des matrices carrées
non symétriques. [Factorial analysis of non-symmetric square matrices.]
In E. Diday (Ed.), Data analysis and informatics (pp. 263–276). New
York, NY: North-Holland.
Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Nonnormal and categorical data
in structural equation models. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller
(Eds.), A second course in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–314).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Gower, J. C. (1977). The analysis of asymmetry and orthogonality. In
J. R. Barra, F. Brodeau, G. Romier, & B. Van Cutsem (Eds.), Recent
developments in statistics (pp. 109–123). Amsterdam,The Netherlands:
North-Holland.
Grice, J. W. (2001). Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychological
Methods, 6, 430–450.
Hubert, L. (1972). Some extensions of Johnson’s hierarchical clustering
algorithms. Psychometrika, 37, 261–274.
61
Jöreskog, K. G. (1978). Structural analysis of covariance and correlation
matrices. Psychometrika, 43, 443–477.
Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensionl scaling by optimizing goodness of
fit a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1–27.
Miller, G. A., & Nicely, P. E. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions
among some English consonants. The Journal of the Acoustic Society of
America, 27, 338–352.
Moré, J. J., & Sorensen, D. C. (1983). Computing a trust region step. SIAM
Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 3, 553–572.
Okada, A., & Imaizumi, T. (1987). Geometric models asymmetric similarity
data. Behaviormetrika, 21, 81–96.
Rothkopf, E. Z. (1957). A measure of stimulus similarity and errors in
some paired-associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53,
94–101.
Saito, T., & Yadohisa, H. (2005). Data analysis of asymmetric structures:
Advanced approaches in computational statistics. New York, NY: Marcel
Dekker.
Vera, J. F., Heiser, W., & Murillo, A. (2007). Global optimization in
any Minkowski metric: A permutation-translation simulated annealing
algorithm for multidimensional scaling. Journal of Classification, 24,
277–301.
Vera, J. F., Macías, R., & Heiser, W. J. (2009a). A dual latent class unfold-
ing model for two-way two-mode preference rating data. Computational
Statistics and Data Analysis, 53, 3231–3244.
Vera, J. F., Macías, R., & Heiser, W. J. (2009b). A latent class
multidimensional scaling model for two-way one-mode continuous rating
dissimilarity data. Psychometrika, 74, 297–315.
Wang, M. D., & Bilger, R. C. (1973). Consonant confusions in noise:
A study of perceptual features. The Journal of the Acoustic Society of
America, 54, 1248–1266.
Weeks, D. G., & Bentler, P. M. (1979). A comparison of linear and
monotone multidimensional scaling models. Psychological Bulletin, 86,
349–354.
Weeks, D. G., & Bentler, P. M. (1982). Restricted multidimensional scaling
models for asymmetric proximities. Psychometrika, 47, 201–208.
Yadohisa, H., & Niki, N. (2000). Vector representation of asymme-
try in multidimensional scaling. Journal of the Japanese Society of
Computational Statistics, 13, 1–14.
Zielman, B., & Heiser, W. J. (1996). Models for asymmetric proximities.
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 49, 127–146.
APPENDIX
GLOBAL IDENTIFICATION OF THE SEM
MODEL
For the global identification of the model in the SEM step, let us show
algebraically how each element of θ = (b, λ1 , λ2 , σ 2 , σζ2 ) can be solved for
in terms of one or more known-to-be-identified elements of the covariance
matrix of the observed variables , given by
⎡ ⎤
VAR (d∗ )
 = ⎣ COV (δ1 , d∗ ) VAR (δ1 ) ⎦. (A.1)
COV (δ2 , d∗ ) COV (δ2 , δ1 ) VAR (δ2 )
Considering the five unknowns in θ , substituting the parameters into the
implied covariance matrix θ in Equation 10, and considering the covariance
structure of  = (θ ), the six derived equations can be solved for the five
unknowns in θ as follows:
VAR (d∗ ) = b2 + σζ2 + kσd(X)
2
(A.2)
COV (δ1 , d∗ ) = λ1 b (A.3)
 62 VERA AND RIVERA

COV (δ2 , d∗ ) = λ2 b (A.4) expression, first after multiplying by λ2 and second after multiplying by
λ1 , and after replacing λ1 λ2 by COV (δ1 , δ2 ) from Equation A.6 the values
of λ1 and λ2 can be given by
VAR (δ1 ) = λ21 + σ 2 (A.5)
 1/2
COV (δ1 , δ2 ) COV (δ1 , d∗ )
λ1 =
COV (δ2 , d∗ )
COV (δ2 , δ1 ) = λ1 λ2 (A.6)  1/2
COV (δ1 , δ2 ) COV (δ2 , d∗ )
λ2 =
COV (δ1 , d∗ )
VAR (δ2 ) = λ22 + σ 2 . (A.7)
Therefore, σ 2 can be identified by means of Equations A.5 or A.7,
From Equations A.3 and A.4 it follows that λ2 COV (δ1 , d∗ ) = whereas b can be identified by means of Equation A.3 or A.4 and σζ2 is
λ1 COV (δ2 , d∗ ). Thus, considering the two equations derived from this also identified by means of Equation A.2.
Downloaded by [UGR-BTCA Gral Universitaria], [J. Fernando Vera] at 09:35 31 January 2014