IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/csdana/v56y2012i6p1624-1643.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A method for increasing the robustness of multiple imputation

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel, Rhian M.
  • Kenward, Michael G.

Abstract

Missing data are common wherever statistical methods are applied in practice. They present a problem in that they require that additional assumptions be made about the mechanism leading to the incompleteness of the data. By incorporating two models for the missing data process, doubly robust (DR) weighting-based methods offer some protection against misspecification bias since inferences are valid when at least one of the two models is correctly specified. The balance between robustness, efficiency and analytical complexity is one which is difficult to strike, resulting in a split between the likelihood and multiple imputation (MI) school on one hand and the weighting and DR school on the other. An extension of MI is proposed that, in certain settings, can be shown to give rise to DR estimators. It is conjectured that this additional robustness holds more generally, as demonstrated using simulation studies. The method is applied to data from the RECORD study, a clinical trial comparing anti-glycaemic combination therapies in type II diabetes patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel, Rhian M. & Kenward, Michael G., 2012. "A method for increasing the robustness of multiple imputation," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 1624-1643.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:56:y:2012:i:6:p:1624-1643 DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2011.10.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016794731100363X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhiqiang Tan, 2010. "Bounded, efficient and doubly robust estimation with inverse weighting," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 97(3), pages 661-682.
    2. 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.
    3. James R. Carpenter & Michael G. Kenward & Stijn Vansteelandt, 2006. "A comparison of multiple imputation and doubly robust estimation for analyses with missing data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(3), pages 571-584.
    4. Stijn Vansteelandt & Andrea Rotnitzky & James Robins, 2007. "Estimation of Regression Models for the Mean of Repeated Outcomes Under Nonignorable Nonmonotone Nonresponse," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 94(4), pages 841-860.
    5. Patrick Royston, 2004. "Multiple imputation of missing values," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 4(3), pages 227-241, September.
    6. Creemers, An & Aerts, Marc & Hens, Niel & Molenberghs, Geert, 2012. "A nonparametric approach to weighted estimating equations for regression analysis with missing covariates," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 100-113, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhang, Mimi & Hu, Qingpei & Xie, Min & Yu, Dan, 2014. "Lower confidence limit for reliability based on grouped data using a quantile-filling algorithm," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 96-111.
    2. Manuel Gomes & Nils Gutacker & Chris Bojke & Andrew Street, 2014. "Addressing missing data in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): implications for comparing provider performance," Working Papers 101cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    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:eee:csdana:v:56:y:2012:i:6:p:1624-1643. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csda .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.