A comparison of multiple imputation with EM algorithm and MCMC method for quality of life missing data

A comparison of multiple imputation with EM algorithm and MCMC method for quality of life missing... This study investigated the performance of multiple imputations with Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm and Monte Carlo Markov chain (MCMC) method in missing data imputation. We compared the accuracy of imputation based on some real data and set up two extreme scenarios and conducted both empirical and simulation studies to examine the effects of missing data rates and number of items used for imputation. In the empirical study, the scenario represented item of highest missing rate from a domain with fewest items. In the simulation study, we selected a domain with most items and the item imputed has lowest missing rate. In the empirical study, the results showed there was no significant difference between EM algorithm and MCMC method for item imputation, and number of items used for imputation has little impact, either. Compared with the actual observed values, the middle responses of 3 and 4 were over-imputed, and the extreme responses of 1, 2 and 5 were under-represented. The similar patterns occurred for domain imputation, and no significant difference between EM algorithm and MCMC method and number of items used for imputation has little impact. In the simulation study, we chose environmental domain to examine the effect of the following variables: EM algorithm and MCMC method, missing data rates, and number of items used for imputation. Again, there was no significant difference between EM algorithm and MCMC method. The accuracy rates did not significantly reduce with increase in the proportions of missing data. Number of items used for imputation has some contribution to accuracy of imputation, but not as much as expected. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Quality & Quantity Springer Journals

A comparison of multiple imputation with EM algorithm and MCMC method for quality of life missing data

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/a-comparison-of-multiple-imputation-with-em-algorithm-and-mcmc-method-2DRhRwOFzk
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Subject
Social Sciences; Methodology of the Social Sciences; Social Sciences, general
ISSN
0033-5177
eISSN
1573-7845
D.O.I.
10.1007/s11135-008-9196-5
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This study investigated the performance of multiple imputations with Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm and Monte Carlo Markov chain (MCMC) method in missing data imputation. We compared the accuracy of imputation based on some real data and set up two extreme scenarios and conducted both empirical and simulation studies to examine the effects of missing data rates and number of items used for imputation. In the empirical study, the scenario represented item of highest missing rate from a domain with fewest items. In the simulation study, we selected a domain with most items and the item imputed has lowest missing rate. In the empirical study, the results showed there was no significant difference between EM algorithm and MCMC method for item imputation, and number of items used for imputation has little impact, either. Compared with the actual observed values, the middle responses of 3 and 4 were over-imputed, and the extreme responses of 1, 2 and 5 were under-represented. The similar patterns occurred for domain imputation, and no significant difference between EM algorithm and MCMC method and number of items used for imputation has little impact. In the simulation study, we chose environmental domain to examine the effect of the following variables: EM algorithm and MCMC method, missing data rates, and number of items used for imputation. Again, there was no significant difference between EM algorithm and MCMC method. The accuracy rates did not significantly reduce with increase in the proportions of missing data. Number of items used for imputation has some contribution to accuracy of imputation, but not as much as expected.

Journal

Quality & QuantitySpringer Journals

Published: Sep 11, 2008

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off