Developing Multiple Paired Comparisons Model for Analysis of Variance Technique
Experimental Test
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24086/cuejhss.v9n1y2025.pp183-187Keywords:
Multiple paired comparison, Ranking and hypotheses testing, Rating on a scale, Taste-testing experiment, Two-way analysis of varianceAbstract
A class of multiple paired comparison models can be developed for taste-testing experiments to evaluate several objects on a seven-point preference scale. This allows for calculating a preference score for each object using the two-way analysis of variance technique (ANOVAT). The primary objective of this research is to distinguish between different types of objects or items by calculating degrees of preference (scores), denoted as S j. These objects, represented by L, are evaluated through paired comparisons. Specifically, we consider six types of potato chips, labeled as A, B, C, D, E, and F. Each pair of chips is presented to two equal groups (2n) of judges or referees, where each group consists of n = 15 individuals. The goal is to determine which object or item is favored over the other. In these comparisons, judges or referees answer the question: Which do you prefer, Object Oj or Object Ok? Their responses are recorded on a seven-point preference scale. The data collected from these paired comparisons are organized using a tabulation method, as demonstrated in Table I. Various statistical methods, including the developed multiple paired comparison model and the two-way ANOVAT, were employed for analysis. The results, summarized in Table IV, indicate that potato chip type B is the most preferred, followed by types D and C, respectively. Type F was found to be the least preferred.
Downloads
References
Bradley, R.A. (1953), Some statistical methods in taste-testing and quality evaluation. Biometrics, 9(1), 22-38.
Bradley, R.A., & Terry, M.E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39(3/4), 324-345.
Bradley, R.A., & Terry, M.E. (1952). The rank analysis of incomplete block designs. Biometrika, 39(3/4), 324-345.
Bühlmann, H., & Huber, P.J. (1963). Pairwise comparison and ranking in tournaments. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34(2), 501-510.
Castura, J.C., Varela, P., & Næs, T. (2023). Investigating paired comparisons after principal component analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 106(3), 104814.
Chung, F.R.K., & Hwang, F.K. (1978). Do stronger players win more knock-out tournaments? Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73(363), 593-596.
Cowden, D.J. (1975). A method of evaluating contestants. The American Statistician, 29(3), 82-83.
David, H.A. (1987). Ranking from unbalanced paired comparison data. Biometrika, 74(2), 432-436.
Davidson, R.R. & Bradley, R.A. (1969). Multivariate paired comparisons: The extension of a univariate model and associated estimation and test procedures. Biometrika, 56(1), 81-95.
Davidson, R.R. (1970). On extending the Bradley-Terry model to accommodate ties in paired comparison experiments. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65(329), 317-328.
Fienberg, S.E.& Larntz, K. (1976). Log linear representation for paired and multiple comparisons models. Biometrika, 63(2), 245-254.
Fowlkes, et al. (1988). The Fowlkes–Mallows statistic and the comparison of two independently determined dendrograms. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 45(6), 971-975.
Glenn, W.A., & David, H.A. (1960). Ties in paired comparison using modified Thurstone-Mosteller model. Biometrics, 16(1), 86-97.
Guttman, L. (1946). An approach for quantifying paired comparisons and rank order. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 17, 144-163.
Jameel, A.M. (2019). Proposed statistical model for scoring and ranking sport tournaments (Racquetball, Squash, and Badminton). Cihan University-Erbil Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(1), 15-19.
Massoudi, A., & Jalal Fatah, S. (2024). Deceptive point-of-sale marketing tactics impact on consumer purchase intentions with an attitude as a mediator. Inquietud Empresarial, 24(2), 1-27.
Massoudi, A.H., Agha, A.M., & Zamoum, K. (2025). Bridging AI Marketing and customer loyalty. Cihan University-Erbil Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(1), 106-113.
Mihálykó, É.O. (2024). Evaluating the capacity of paired comparison methods to aggregate rankings of separate groups. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 32, 109-129.
Mosteller, F. (1951). An experimental measurement of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 59(5), 371-380.
Nyarko, E. (2023). On the design of paired comparison experiments with application. Applied and Interdisciplinary Mathematics, 10(1), 2180873.
Rao, P.V. and Kupper, L.L. (1967). Ties in paired-comparison experiments: A generalization of the Bradley-Terry model. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, 194-204.
Scheffé, H. (1952). An analysis of variance for paired comparisons. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47(259), 381-400.
Thurstone, L.L. (1927a). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273-286.
Thurstone, L.L. (1927b). The method of paired comparisons for social values. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21, 384-400.
Wieren’s, B. (1974). Paired comparison product testing-when individual preferences are stochastic. Applied Statistics, 23(3), 384-390.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0] that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
