LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous (more recent) messageNext (less recent) messagePrevious (more recent) in topicNext (less recent) in topicPrevious (more recent) by same authorNext (less recent) by same authorPrevious page (May 2004)Back to main SPSSX-L pageJoin or leave SPSSX-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Wed, 12 May 2004 11:33:18 -0400
Reply-To:     Colin_Valdiserri@marketstrategies.com
Sender:       "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Colin Valdiserri <Colin_Valdiserri@marketstrategies.com>
Subject:      Re: Runnnig Means Procedure in K-Means Cluster
Comments: To: Art@DrKendall.org
In-Reply-To:  <40A23979.4040904@verizon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Thank you for the feedback , and I do agree with never relying on just one cluster run for the final solution. In response to your question, the 20 items were not taken from scales, but more so each question was thought up separately... I did run principal components anlaysis and derived 6 factors from these 20 items, though only the first factor has a high cronbach's alpha, the rest are around .30 - .50. I am investigating these items further through basic correlation matrices.

We will definitely run the discrim on the back end to validate the segments. I am also thinking about splitting the sample randomly in two and comparing clustering solutions to look at stability.

Thanks again, I will look into the Two-Step prodecure further. If you don't mind and have the time could you expand on your resaons for prefering the newer Two-Step procedure?

Colin M. Valdiserri, M.A. Marketing Sciences Analyst Market Strategies, Inc. colin_valdiserri@marketstrategies.com Phone: (734) 779-6826

Art Kendall <Arthur.Kendall@verizon.net> Sent by: "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@listserv.uga.edu> 05/12/2004 10:49 AM Please respond to Art@DrKendall.org

To SPSSX-L@listserv.uga.edu cc

Subject Re: Runnnig Means Procedure in K-Means Cluster

If you are each doing a few randomizations of the cases with different runs it shouldn't make much difference. I have been doing clustering since 1971 and would never rely on a single run.

That being said, these days I would use TWOSTEP rather than k-means. I would follow the clustering with DFA's to to assess the quality of different solutions.

Also are the 20 items grouped into scales based on constructs?

Art Art@DrKendall.org Social Research Consultants University Park, MD USA (301) 864-5570

Colin Valdiserri wrote:

>Hi again everyone, > >I am currently working on a consumer segmentation project with another >colleague. We have about 1400 cases and 20 attitudinal items that are >being used as our basis variables. I usually select the "Running Means" >option when deriving a clustering solution, if I remember correctly this >option forces new centers each time a case is added to a cluster as >compared to re-doing the centers after all of the cases have been added to >clusters. To me it sound like the running means produces a more >stable/reproducible solution. > >My colleague does not use the running means option and before suggesting >it to them (being a VP and all), I want to make sure that I am >understanding it correctly and am offering a possible better solution. > >Thanks in advance. > >Colin M. Valdiserri, M.A. >Marketing Sciences Analyst >Market Strategies, Inc. >colin_valdiserri@marketstrategies.com >Phone: (734) 779-6826 > > >


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SPSSX-L page