IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssc/v58y2009i2p171-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multifaceted sensitivity analysis of the Slovenian public opinion survey data

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Beunckens
  • Cristina Sotto
  • Geert Molenberghs
  • Geert Verbeke

Abstract

Summary. Many models to analyse incomplete data have been developed that allow the missing data to be missing not at random. Awareness has grown that such models are based on unverifiable assumptions, in the sense that they rest on the (incomplete) data only in part, but that inferences nevertheless depend on what the model predicts about the unobserved data, given the observed data. This explains why, nowadays, considerable work is being devoted to assess how sensitive models for incomplete data are to the particular model chosen, a family of models chosen and the effect of (a group of) influential subjects. For each of these categories, several proposals have been formulated, studied theoretically and/or by simulations, and applied to sets of data. It is, however, uncommon to explore various sensitivity analysis avenues simultaneously. We apply a collection of such tools, some after extension, to incomplete counts arising from cross‐classified binary data from the so‐called Slovenian public opinion survey. Thus for the first time bringing together a variety of sensitivity analysis tools on the same set of data, we can sketch a comprehensive sensitivity analysis picture. We show that missingness at random estimates of the proportion voting in favour of independence are insensitive to the precise choice of missingness at random model and close to the actual plebiscite results, whereas the missingness not at random models that are furthest from the plebiscite results are vulnerable to the influence of outlying cases. Our approach helps to illustrate the value of comprehensive sensitivity analysis. Ideas are formulated on the methodology's use beyond the data analysis that we consider.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Beunckens & Cristina Sotto & Geert Molenberghs & Geert Verbeke, 2009. "A multifaceted sensitivity analysis of the Slovenian public opinion survey data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58(2), pages 171-196, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssc:v:58:y:2009:i:2:p:171-196
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9876.2009.00647.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9876.2009.00647.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9876.2009.00647.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geert Molenberghs & Caroline Beunckens & Cristina Sotto & Michael G. Kenward, 2008. "Every missingness not at random model has a missingness at random counterpart with equal fit," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(2), pages 371-388, April.
    2. Jansen, Ivy & Hens, Niel & Molenberghs, Geert & Aerts, Marc & Verbeke, Geert & Kenward, Michael G., 2006. "The nature of sensitivity in monotone missing not at random models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 830-858, February.
    3. Geert Verbeke & Geert Molenberghs & Herbert Thijs & Emmanuel Lesaffre & Michael G. Kenward, 2001. "Sensitivity Analysis for Nonrandom Dropout: A Local Influence Approach," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 57(1), pages 7-14, March.
    4. Geert Molenberghs & Michael G. Kenward & Els Goetghebeur, 2001. "Sensitivity analysis for incomplete contingency tables: the Slovenian plebiscite case," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 50(1), pages 15-29.
    5. Geert Molenberghs & Herbert Thijs & Michael G. Kenward & Geert Verbeke, 2003. "Sensitivity Analysis of Continuous Incomplete Longitudinal Outcomes," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 57(1), pages 112-135, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ivy Jansen & Geert Molenberghs, 2008. "A flexible marginal modelling strategy for non‐monotone missing data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(2), pages 347-373, April.
    2. Shu Xu & Shelley A. Blozis, 2011. "Sensitivity Analysis of Mixed Models for Incomplete Longitudinal Data," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 36(2), pages 237-256, April.
    3. S. Eftekhari Mahabadi & M. Ganjali, 2012. "An index of local sensitivity to non-ignorability for parametric survival models with potential non-random missing covariate: an application to the SEER cancer registry data," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(11), pages 2327-2348, July.
    4. Baojiang Chen & Xiao-Hua Zhou, 2011. "Doubly Robust Estimates for Binary Longitudinal Data Analysis with Missing Response and Missing Covariates," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 830-842, September.
    5. D. Nitsch & B. L. DeStavola & S. M. B. Morton & D. A. Leon, 2006. "Linkage bias in estimating the association between childhood exposures and propensity to become a mother: an example of simple sensitivity analyses," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(3), pages 493-505, July.
    6. Kim, Seongyong & Park, Yousung & Kim, Daeyoung, 2015. "On missing-at-random mechanism in two-way incomplete contingency tables," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 196-203.
    7. Margarita Moreno-Betancur & Grégoire Rey & Aurélien Latouche, 2015. "Direct likelihood inference and sensitivity analysis for competing risks regression with missing causes of failure," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 71(2), pages 498-507, June.
    8. Ivy Jansen & Geert Molenberghs & Marc Aerts & Herbert Thijs & Kristel Van Steen, 2003. "A Local Influence Approach Applied to Binary Data from a Psychiatric Study," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 410-419, June.
    9. Trias Wahyuni Rakhmawati & Geert Molenberghs & Geert Verbeke & Christel Faes, 2016. "Local influence diagnostics for incomplete overdispersed longitudinal counts," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(9), pages 1722-1737, July.
    10. Ivy Jansen & Ann Van den Troost & Geert Molenberghs & Ad A. Vermulst & Jan R. M. Gerris, 2006. "Modeling Partially Incomplete Marital Satisfaction Data," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 35(1), pages 113-136, August.
    11. Betsy J. Feldman & Sophia Rabe-Hesketh, 2012. "Modeling Achievement Trajectories When Attrition Is Informative," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 37(6), pages 703-736, December.
    12. O'Hara Hines, R.J. & Hines, W.G.S., 2007. "Covariance miss-specification and the local influence approach in sensitivity analyses of longitudinal data with drop-outs," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(12), pages 5537-5546, August.
    13. Xiaoyan Shi & Hongtu Zhu & Joseph G. Ibrahim, 2009. "Local Influence for Generalized Linear Models with Missing Covariates," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(4), pages 1164-1174, December.
    14. Niansheng Tang & Sy-Miin Chow & Joseph G. Ibrahim & Hongtu Zhu, 2017. "Bayesian Sensitivity Analysis of a Nonlinear Dynamic Factor Analysis Model with Nonparametric Prior and Possible Nonignorable Missingness," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(4), pages 875-903, December.
    15. Sinha, Sanjoy K. & Kaushal, Amit & Xiao, Wenzhong, 2014. "Inference for longitudinal data with nonignorable nonmonotone missing responses," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 77-91.
    16. Brenden Bishop & Minjeong Jeon, 2016. "Book Review," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(4), pages 1164-1167, December.
    17. Sander Greenland, 2005. "Multiple‐bias modelling for analysis of observational data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(2), pages 267-306, March.
    18. Frederico Poleto & Geert Molenberghs & Carlos Paulino & Julio Singer, 2011. "Sensitivity analysis for incomplete continuous data," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 20(3), pages 589-606, November.
    19. Prosper Dovonon & Alastair Hall & Frank Kleibergen, 2018. "Inference in Second-Order Identi?ed Models," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-36, CIRANO.
    20. Morten Overgaard & Stefan Nygaard Hansen, 2021. "On the assumption of independent right censoring," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 48(4), pages 1234-1255, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssc:v:58:y:2009:i:2:p:171-196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.