SpAM is convenient but also satisfying: Reply to verheyen et al. (2016)

Michael C. Hout, Stephen Goldinger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Hout, Goldinger, and Ferguson (2013) critically examined the spatial arrangement method (SpAM), originally proposed by Goldstone (1994), as a fast and efficient way to collect similarity data for multidimensional scaling. We found that SpAM produced high-quality data, making it an intuitive and user-friendly alternative to the classic "pairwise" method. Verheyen, Voorspoels, Vanpaemel, and Storms (2016) reexamined our data and raised 3 caveats regarding SpAM. In this reply, we suggest that Verheyen et al. mischaracterized our reported data as representing the entire range of potential SpAM data. SpAM results might appear more nuanced with modified instructions or stimuli. By contrast, the pairwise method is inherently limited because of its laborious, serial nature. We also demonstrate that, when the methods are equated in terms of required data-collection time, SpAM is clearly superior in terms of predicting classification data. We agree that caution is required when adopting a new method but suggest that fair assessment of SpAM requires a richer data set.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)383-387
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Experimental Psychology: General
Volume145
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016

Fingerprint

Arrangement
Multidimensional Scaling
Nature
Stimulus
Data Collection
Data Accuracy
Datasets

Keywords

  • Methodology
  • Multidimensional scaling
  • Similarity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Psychology(all)
  • Developmental Neuroscience
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

Cite this

SpAM is convenient but also satisfying : Reply to verheyen et al. (2016). / Hout, Michael C.; Goldinger, Stephen.

In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 145, No. 3, 01.03.2016, p. 383-387.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e3f7432e9bc045a08c486c7cd569ea10,
title = "SpAM is convenient but also satisfying: Reply to verheyen et al. (2016)",
abstract = "Hout, Goldinger, and Ferguson (2013) critically examined the spatial arrangement method (SpAM), originally proposed by Goldstone (1994), as a fast and efficient way to collect similarity data for multidimensional scaling. We found that SpAM produced high-quality data, making it an intuitive and user-friendly alternative to the classic {"}pairwise{"} method. Verheyen, Voorspoels, Vanpaemel, and Storms (2016) reexamined our data and raised 3 caveats regarding SpAM. In this reply, we suggest that Verheyen et al. mischaracterized our reported data as representing the entire range of potential SpAM data. SpAM results might appear more nuanced with modified instructions or stimuli. By contrast, the pairwise method is inherently limited because of its laborious, serial nature. We also demonstrate that, when the methods are equated in terms of required data-collection time, SpAM is clearly superior in terms of predicting classification data. We agree that caution is required when adopting a new method but suggest that fair assessment of SpAM requires a richer data set.",
keywords = "Methodology, Multidimensional scaling, Similarity",
author = "Hout, {Michael C.} and Stephen Goldinger",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/xge0000144",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "145",
pages = "383--387",
journal = "Journal of Experimental Psychology: General",
issn = "0096-3445",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SpAM is convenient but also satisfying

T2 - Reply to verheyen et al. (2016)

AU - Hout, Michael C.

AU - Goldinger, Stephen

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Hout, Goldinger, and Ferguson (2013) critically examined the spatial arrangement method (SpAM), originally proposed by Goldstone (1994), as a fast and efficient way to collect similarity data for multidimensional scaling. We found that SpAM produced high-quality data, making it an intuitive and user-friendly alternative to the classic "pairwise" method. Verheyen, Voorspoels, Vanpaemel, and Storms (2016) reexamined our data and raised 3 caveats regarding SpAM. In this reply, we suggest that Verheyen et al. mischaracterized our reported data as representing the entire range of potential SpAM data. SpAM results might appear more nuanced with modified instructions or stimuli. By contrast, the pairwise method is inherently limited because of its laborious, serial nature. We also demonstrate that, when the methods are equated in terms of required data-collection time, SpAM is clearly superior in terms of predicting classification data. We agree that caution is required when adopting a new method but suggest that fair assessment of SpAM requires a richer data set.

AB - Hout, Goldinger, and Ferguson (2013) critically examined the spatial arrangement method (SpAM), originally proposed by Goldstone (1994), as a fast and efficient way to collect similarity data for multidimensional scaling. We found that SpAM produced high-quality data, making it an intuitive and user-friendly alternative to the classic "pairwise" method. Verheyen, Voorspoels, Vanpaemel, and Storms (2016) reexamined our data and raised 3 caveats regarding SpAM. In this reply, we suggest that Verheyen et al. mischaracterized our reported data as representing the entire range of potential SpAM data. SpAM results might appear more nuanced with modified instructions or stimuli. By contrast, the pairwise method is inherently limited because of its laborious, serial nature. We also demonstrate that, when the methods are equated in terms of required data-collection time, SpAM is clearly superior in terms of predicting classification data. We agree that caution is required when adopting a new method but suggest that fair assessment of SpAM requires a richer data set.

KW - Methodology

KW - Multidimensional scaling

KW - Similarity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959019567&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959019567&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/xge0000144

DO - 10.1037/xge0000144

M3 - Article

C2 - 26881992

AN - SCOPUS:84959019567

VL - 145

SP - 383

EP - 387

JO - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

JF - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

SN - 0096-3445

IS - 3

ER -