Imputing missing repeated measures data:: how should we proceed?

被引:19
|
作者
Elliott, P [1 ]
Hawthorne, G [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Melbourne, Dept Psychiat, Australian Ctr Posttraumat Mental Hlth, Heidelberg, Vic 3081, Australia
来源
AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY | 2005年 / 39卷 / 07期
关键词
closest match; imputation; last value carried forward; listwise deletion; missing data; regression; standardized score imputation;
D O I
10.1111/j.1440-1614.2005.01629.x
中图分类号
R749 [精神病学];
学科分类号
100205 ;
摘要
Objective: This paper compares six missing data methods that can be used for carrying out statistical tests on repeated measures data: listwise deletion, last value carried forward (LVCF), standardized score imputation, regression and two versions of a closest match method. Method: The efficacy of each was investigated under a variety of sample sizes and with differing levels of missingness. Randomly selected samples from a dataset (n = 804) were used to compare the methods using t-tests. Efficacy was defined as the closeness of the estimated t-values to the true t-values from the complete dataset. Results: The results suggest a reliable and efficacious basis for imputation method for repeated measures data is to substitute a missing datum with a value from another individual who has the closest scores on the same variable measured at other timepoints, or the average value of four individuals who have the closest scores on the same variable at other timepoints. The LVCF and standardized score methods performed relatively poorly, which is of concern since these are often recommended. Listwise deletion was also an inefficient missing data method. Conclusions: Researchers should consider using closest match missing data imputation. Since listwise deletion performed poorly, is widely reported and is the default method in many statistical software packages, the findings have broad implications.
引用
收藏
页码:575 / 582
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] How should we proceed with the standardization in case of allergen determination?
    M. Lacorn
    T. Weiss
    U. Immer
    Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 2013, 18 : 119 - 125
  • [22] Missing repeated measures data in clinical trials
    Pugh, Stephanie L.
    Brown, Paul D.
    Enserro, Danielle
    NEURO-ONCOLOGY PRACTICE, 2022, 9 (01) : 35 - 42
  • [23] Evidence on the effectiveness of public health practice: how should we proceed?
    Reijneveld, Sijmen A.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2015, 25 (05): : 752 - 753
  • [24] HOW SHOULD WE PROCEED WHEN A THYROID-NODULE IS PALPATED
    VANHAEVERBEEK, M
    BOURGEOIS, P
    FRUHLING, J
    ACTA CLINICA BELGICA, 1985, 40 (05): : 336 - 337
  • [25] HOW SHOULD WE PROCEED WHEN A THYROID-NODULE IS PALPATED
    LAMBERT, M
    PIRET, L
    ACTA CLINICA BELGICA, 1984, 39 (05): : 322 - 324
  • [26] Latissimus dorsi stimulation in dynamic cardiomyoplasty: How should we proceed?
    Gealow, KK
    BASIC AND APPLIED MYOLOGY, 1998, 8 (01): : 41 - 50
  • [27] HOW SHOULD WE PROCEED WHEN A MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION IS SUSPECTED
    CHAPELLE, JP
    ACTA CLINICA BELGICA, 1984, 39 (06): : 393 - 395
  • [28] Addressing Juvenile Crime: What Have We Learned, and How Should We Proceed?
    Lane, Jodi
    CRIMINOLOGY & PUBLIC POLICY, 2018, 17 (02) : 283 - 307
  • [29] HOW SHOULD WE PROCEED WHEN A THYROID-NODULE IS PALPATED
    JONCKHEER, MH
    ACTA CLINICA BELGICA, 1985, 40 (02): : 129 - 129
  • [30] Cell-based myocardial repair: How should we proceed?
    Taylor, DA
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2004, 95 : S8 - S12