Saltstone R, Fraboni M
Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
J Clin Psychol. 1990 Nov;46(6):930-4. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(199011)46:6<930::aid-jclp2270460639>3.0.co;2-r.
This study utilized the four most commonly employed clustering techniques (CLINK, SLINK, UPGMA, and Ward's) to illustrate the dissimilarity of cluster group membership (based upon short-form MMPI scale scores and a measure of alcohol dependency) between partitions in a sample of 113 impaired driving offenders. Results, examined with the Rand index of cluster comparison, demonstrated that cluster group membership can be so different between alternative clustering methods as to equal chance assignment. Cautions are given with regard to the use of cluster analysis for other than exploratory work. In particular, psychologists are cautioned against attempting to use cluster analysis based upon personality inventory scores (which can never be wholly reliable or discrete) for patient classification.
本研究运用了四种最常用的聚类技术(CLINK、SLINK、UPGMA和沃德法),以说明在113名酒后驾车违法者样本中,不同聚类方法得出的聚类组成员差异(基于MMPI简表量表得分和酒精依赖测量)。通过聚类比较的兰德指数进行检验的结果表明,不同聚类方法之间的聚类组成员差异可能非常大,以至于相当于随机分配。文中对将聚类分析用于探索性工作以外的其他用途提出了警示。特别是,告诫心理学家不要试图基于人格量表得分(其永远不可能完全可靠或离散)使用聚类分析进行患者分类。