東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Multilevel multiple imputation: An e...

Mistler, Stephen Andrew.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Multilevel multiple imputation: An examination of competing methods.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Multilevel multiple imputation: An examination of competing methods./
作者:	Mistler, Stephen Andrew.
面頁冊數:	205 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-09(E), Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International76-09B(E).
標題:	Statistics. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3689688
ISBN:	9781321692747

Multilevel multiple imputation: An examination of competing methods.
Mistler, Stephen Andrew.

Multilevel multiple imputation: An examination of competing methods. - 205 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-09(E), Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Arizona State University, 2015.

Missing data are common in psychology research and can lead to bias and reduced power if not properly handled. Multiple imputation is a state-of-the-art missing data method recommended by methodologists. Multiple imputation methods can generally be divided into two broad categories: joint model (JM) imputation and fully conditional specification (FCS) imputation. JM draws missing values simultaneously for all incomplete variables using a multivariate distribution (e.g., multivariate normal). FCS, on the other hand, imputes variables one at a time, drawing missing values from a series of univariate distributions. In the single-level context, these two approaches have been shown to be equivalent with multivariate normal data. However, less is known about the similarities and differences of these two approaches with multilevel data, and the methodological literature provides no insight into the situations under which the approaches would produce identical results. This document examined five multilevel multiple imputation approaches (three JM methods and two FCS methods) that have been proposed in the literature. An analytic section shows that only two of the methods (one JM method and one FCS method) used imputation models equivalent to a two-level joint population model that contained random intercepts and different associations across levels. The other three methods employed imputation models that differed from the population model primarily in their ability to preserve distinct level-1 and level-2 covariances. I verified the analytic work with computer simulations, and the simulation results also showed that imputation models that failed to preserve level-specific covariances produced biased estimates. The studies also highlighted conditions that exacerbated the amount of bias produced (e.g., bias was greater for conditions with small cluster sizes). The analytic work and simulations lead to a number of practical recommendations for researchers.

ISBN: 9781321692747Subjects--Topical Terms:

517247
Statistics.

Multilevel multiple imputation: An examination of competing methods.
LDR:02846nmm a2200277 4500 001 2076351
005 20161028121114.5
008 170521s2015 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781321692747
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI3689688
035 $a AAI3689688
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Mistler, Stephen Andrew. $3 3191797
245 1 0 $a Multilevel multiple imputation: An examination of competing methods.
300 $a 205 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-09(E), Section: B.
500 $a Adviser: Craig K. Enders.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Arizona State University, 2015.
520 $a Missing data are common in psychology research and can lead to bias and reduced power if not properly handled. Multiple imputation is a state-of-the-art missing data method recommended by methodologists. Multiple imputation methods can generally be divided into two broad categories: joint model (JM) imputation and fully conditional specification (FCS) imputation. JM draws missing values simultaneously for all incomplete variables using a multivariate distribution (e.g., multivariate normal). FCS, on the other hand, imputes variables one at a time, drawing missing values from a series of univariate distributions. In the single-level context, these two approaches have been shown to be equivalent with multivariate normal data. However, less is known about the similarities and differences of these two approaches with multilevel data, and the methodological literature provides no insight into the situations under which the approaches would produce identical results. This document examined five multilevel multiple imputation approaches (three JM methods and two FCS methods) that have been proposed in the literature. An analytic section shows that only two of the methods (one JM method and one FCS method) used imputation models equivalent to a two-level joint population model that contained random intercepts and different associations across levels. The other three methods employed imputation models that differed from the population model primarily in their ability to preserve distinct level-1 and level-2 covariances. I verified the analytic work with computer simulations, and the simulation results also showed that imputation models that failed to preserve level-specific covariances produced biased estimates. The studies also highlighted conditions that exacerbated the amount of bias produced (e.g., bias was greater for conditions with small cluster sizes). The analytic work and simulations lead to a number of practical recommendations for researchers.
590 $a School code: 0010.
650 4 $a Statistics. $3 517247
650 4 $a Quantitative psychology. $3 2144748
690 $a 0463
690 $a 0632
710 2 $a Arizona State University. $b Psychology. $3 1677434
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 76-09B(E).
790 $a 0010
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2015
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3689688