Multiple imputation (MI) and full information maximum likelihood (FIML) are the two most common approaches to missing data analysis. In theory, MI and FIML are equivalent when identical models are tested using the same variables, and when m, the number of imputations performed with MI, approaches infinity. However, it is important to know how many imputations are necessary before MI and FIML are sufficiently equivalent in ways that are important to prevention scientists. MI theory suggests that small values of m, even on the order of three to five imputations, yield excellent results. Previous guidelines for sufficient m are based on relative efficiency, which involves the fraction of missing information (γ) for the parameter being estimated, and m. In the present study, we used a Monte Carlo simulation to test MI models across several scenarios in which γ and m were varied. Standard errors and p-values for the regression coefficient of interest varied as a function of m, but not at the same rate as relative efficiency. Most importantly, statistical power for small effect sizes diminished as m became smaller, and the rate of this power falloff was much greater than predicted by changes in relative efficiency. Based our findings, we recommend that researchers using MI should perform many more imputations than previously considered sufficient. These recommendations are based on γ, and take into consideration one’s tolerance for a preventable power falloff (compared to FIML) due to using too few imputations.
Prevention Science – Springer Journals
Published: Jun 5, 2007
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
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud