处理增长混合模型中的缺失数据

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
D. Y. Lee, Jeffrey R. Harring
{"title":"处理增长混合模型中的缺失数据","authors":"D. Y. Lee, Jeffrey R. Harring","doi":"10.3102/10769986221149140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A Monte Carlo simulation was performed to compare methods for handling missing data in growth mixture models. The methods considered in the current study were (a) a fully Bayesian approach using a Gibbs sampler, (b) full information maximum likelihood using the expectation–maximization algorithm, (c) multiple imputation, (d) a two-stage multiple imputation method, and (e) listwise deletion. Of the five methods, it was found that the Bayesian approach and two-stage multiple imputation methods generally produce less biased parameter estimates compared to maximum likelihood or single imputation methods, although key differences were observed. Similarities and disparities among methods are highlighted and general recommendations articulated.","PeriodicalId":48001,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics","volume":"48 1","pages":"320 - 348"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Handling Missing Data in Growth Mixture Models\",\"authors\":\"D. Y. Lee, Jeffrey R. Harring\",\"doi\":\"10.3102/10769986221149140\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A Monte Carlo simulation was performed to compare methods for handling missing data in growth mixture models. The methods considered in the current study were (a) a fully Bayesian approach using a Gibbs sampler, (b) full information maximum likelihood using the expectation–maximization algorithm, (c) multiple imputation, (d) a two-stage multiple imputation method, and (e) listwise deletion. Of the five methods, it was found that the Bayesian approach and two-stage multiple imputation methods generally produce less biased parameter estimates compared to maximum likelihood or single imputation methods, although key differences were observed. Similarities and disparities among methods are highlighted and general recommendations articulated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"320 - 348\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986221149140\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986221149140","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

进行了蒙特卡罗模拟来比较处理生长混合模型中缺失数据的方法。本研究中考虑的方法是(a)使用Gibbs采样器的全贝叶斯方法,(b)使用期望最大化算法的全信息最大似然方法,(c)多次输入,(d)两阶段多次输入方法,以及(e)列表删除。在这五种方法中,我们发现,与最大似然或单次插值方法相比,贝叶斯方法和两阶段多重插值方法通常产生更少的偏差参数估计,尽管观察到关键差异。强调了各种方法之间的异同,并提出了一般性建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Handling Missing Data in Growth Mixture Models
A Monte Carlo simulation was performed to compare methods for handling missing data in growth mixture models. The methods considered in the current study were (a) a fully Bayesian approach using a Gibbs sampler, (b) full information maximum likelihood using the expectation–maximization algorithm, (c) multiple imputation, (d) a two-stage multiple imputation method, and (e) listwise deletion. Of the five methods, it was found that the Bayesian approach and two-stage multiple imputation methods generally produce less biased parameter estimates compared to maximum likelihood or single imputation methods, although key differences were observed. Similarities and disparities among methods are highlighted and general recommendations articulated.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, sponsored jointly by the American Educational Research Association and the American Statistical Association, publishes articles that are original and provide methods that are useful to those studying problems and issues in educational or behavioral research. Typical papers introduce new methods of analysis. Critical reviews of current practice, tutorial presentations of less well known methods, and novel applications of already-known methods are also of interest. Papers discussing statistical techniques without specific educational or behavioral interest or focusing on substantive results without developing new statistical methods or models or making novel use of existing methods have lower priority. Simulation studies, either to demonstrate properties of an existing method or to compare several existing methods (without providing a new method), also have low priority. The Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics provides an outlet for papers that are original and provide methods that are useful to those studying problems and issues in educational or behavioral research. Typical papers introduce new methods of analysis, provide properties of these methods, and an example of use in education or behavioral research. Critical reviews of current practice, tutorial presentations of less well known methods, and novel applications of already-known methods are also sometimes accepted. Papers discussing statistical techniques without specific educational or behavioral interest or focusing on substantive results without developing new statistical methods or models or making novel use of existing methods have lower priority. Simulation studies, either to demonstrate properties of an existing method or to compare several existing methods (without providing a new method), also have low priority.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信