Missing (Completely?) At Random: Lessons from Insurance Studies
A dilemma frequently faced by empirical researchers is whether they should keep observations without complete information in the analysis. Assuming missingness is not biased in any perceivable direction, most studies use a complete case analysis approach, whereby only observations with complete information are kept for empirical estimation. However, the literature on statistics (e.g., Little and Rubin 2002) suggests that potential biases may arise from such practice, especially if missing data are not missing completely at random (MCAR). When there are missing data, Littles MCAR test (1988) can be performed to reveal whether imputation methods are necessary to minimize the problems arising from incomplete data. We take two recently studied insurance data sets as examples to show that missing data issues can be better handled.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 3 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://www.degruyter.com|
|Order Information:||Web: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/apjri|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Browne, Mark J & Puelz, Robert, 1999. "The Effect of Legal Rules on the Value of Economic and Non-economic Damages and the Decision to File," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 189-213, August.
- Steven B. Caudill & Mercedes Ayuso & Montserrat Guillén, 2005. "Fraud Detection Using a Multinomial Logit Model With Missing Information," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 72(4), pages 539-550.
- Little, Roderick J A, 1985. "A Note about Models for Selectivity Bias," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(6), pages 1469-1474, November.
- Joan T. Schmit & Jia-Hsing Yeh, 2003. "An Economic Analysis of Auto Compensation Systems: Choice Experiences From New Jersey and Pennsylvania," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 70(4), pages 601-628.
- Horton N.J. & Lipsitz S.R. & Parzen M., 2003. "A Potential for Bias When Rounding in Multiple Imputation," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 57, pages 229-232, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:apjrin:v:3:y:2009:i:2:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.