IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ininma/v33y2013i5p734-751.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do MIS researchers handle missing data in survey-based research: A content analysis approach

Author

Listed:
  • Karanja, Erastus
  • Zaveri, Jigish
  • Ahmed, Ashraf

Abstract

Missing data is a common occurrence in survey-based research studies. However, the issue of missing data in Management Information Systems (MIS) literature has been overlooked, unlike the case in other disciplines such as Psychology, Marketing, Statistics, and Operations Management. The aim of this paper is to narrow this gap in the MIS field by investigating how MIS researchers address issues of missing data. This paper briefly outlines the causes of missing data in survey-based research as well as the common remedial techniques available to researchers. The paper also reviews how the common statistical software programs namely PASW (SPSS), SAS, LISREL, AMOS, EQS, and PLS handle missing data. It summarizes the common missing data remedial techniques and procedures and outlines how the presence of missing data affect sample size, statistical power, parameter estimates, ability to cope with different missing data patterns, and ease of implementation. Following that is a review of 749 survey-based research articles published between 1990 and 2010 in nine mainstream MIS Journals. The results reveal that researchers rarely report, explicitly, the presence or treatment of missing data and that when they do – they tend to use the least accurate techniques of listwise and pairwise deletion. The research concludes with recommendations that include a call for editorial policies that encourage the reporting of missing data, the reporting of the chosen missing data treatment techniques as well as the justifications for the techniques adopted by the researchers. The authors assert, based on the research, that following these recommendations will affect the rigor and quality of MIS survey-based research.

Suggested Citation

  • Karanja, Erastus & Zaveri, Jigish & Ahmed, Ashraf, 2013. "How do MIS researchers handle missing data in survey-based research: A content analysis approach," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 734-751.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ininma:v:33:y:2013:i:5:p:734-751
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401213000649
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.05.002?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
    ---><---

    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. Wanda J. Orlikowski & Jack J. Baroudi, 1991. "Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 1-28, March.
    2. Gilley, Otis W. & Leone, Robert P., 1991. "A two-stage imputation procedure for item nonresponse in surveys," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 281-291, June.
    3. Heitjan, D.F., 1997. "Annotation: what can be done about missing data? Approaches to imputation," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 87(4), pages 548-550.
    4. Becker, William E & Walstad, William B, 1990. "Data Loss from Pretest to Posttest as a Sample Selection Problem," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 184-188, February.
    5. Little, Roderick J A, 1988. "Missing-Data Adjustments in Large Surveys," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 6(3), pages 287-296, July.
    6. Becker, William E. & Powers, John R., 2001. "Student performance, attrition, and class size given missing student data," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 377-388, August.
    7. Tenenhaus, Michel & Vinzi, Vincenzo Esposito & Chatelin, Yves-Marie & Lauro, Carlo, 2005. "PLS path modeling," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 159-205, January.
    8. Olinsky, Alan & Chen, Shaw & Harlow, Lisa, 2003. "The comparative efficacy of imputation methods for missing data in structural equation modeling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(1), pages 53-79, November.
    9. Little, Roderick J A, 1988. "Missing-Data Adjustments in Large Surveys: Reply," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 6(3), pages 300-301, July.
    10. Christopher L. Shook & David J. Ketchen & Cynthia S. Cycyota & Dilene Crockett, 2003. "Data analytic trends and training in strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(12), pages 1231-1237, December.
    11. Nilesh Saraf & Christoph Schlueter Langdon & Sanjay Gosain, 2007. "IS Application Capabilities and Relational Value in Interfirm Partnerships," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 320-339, September.
    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. Olinsky, Alan & Chen, Shaw & Harlow, Lisa, 2003. "The comparative efficacy of imputation methods for missing data in structural equation modeling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(1), pages 53-79, November.
    2. S. Nazli Wasti, 2001. "Predictors of Trust in Buyer-Supplier Relations: A Contextual and Cultural Comparison of Japan and Turkey," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-108, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    3. Joost Ginkel & Pieter Kroonenberg, 2014. "Using Generalized Procrustes Analysis for Multiple Imputation in Principal Component Analysis," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 31(2), pages 242-269, July.
    4. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1992. "Incomplete panels and selection bias : A survey," Discussion Paper 1992-7, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    5. Ana León-Gómez & José Manuel Santos-Jaén & Daniel Ruiz-Palomo & Mercedes Palacios-Manzano, 2022. "Disentangling the impact of ICT adoption on SMEs performance: the mediating roles of corporate social responsibility and innovation," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 13(3), pages 831-866, September.
    6. Gerko Vink & Laurence E. Frank & Jeroen Pannekoek & Stef Buuren, 2014. "Predictive mean matching imputation of semicontinuous variables," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 68(1), pages 61-90, February.
    7. Martin, Eisele & Zhu, Junyi, 2013. "Multiple imputation in a complex household survey - the German Panel on Household Finances (PHF): challenges and solutions," MPRA Paper 57666, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Dang, Hai-Anh & Carletto, Calogero, 2022. "Recall Bias Revisited: Measure Farm Labor Using Mixed-Mode Surveys and Multiple Imputation," IZA Discussion Papers 14997, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Daniel Schunk, 2007. "A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Multiple Imputation Procedure for Dealing with Item Nonresponse in the German SAVE Survey," MEA discussion paper series 07121, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    10. Brownstone, David, 1997. "Multiple Imputation Methodology for Missing Data, Non-Random Response, and Panel Attrition," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt2zd6w6hh, University of California Transportation Center.
    11. Zachary H. Seeskin, 2016. "Evaluating the Use of Commercial Data to Improve Survey Estimates of Property Taxes," CARRA Working Papers 2016-06, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    12. F. Di Lascio & Simone Giannerini & Alessandra Reale, 2015. "Exploring copulas for the imputation of complex dependent data," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 24(1), pages 159-175, March.
    13. Ankita Patnaik & Jeffrey Hemmeter & Arif Mamun, "undated". "Promoting Readiness of Minors with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial," Mathematica Policy Research Reports a74c93d9bdce40709ad81cdbc, Mathematica Policy Research.
    14. Westermeier, Christian & Grabka, Markus M., 2016. "Longitudinal Wealth Data and Multiple Imputation: An Evaluation Study," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10(3), pages 237-252.
    15. Youngjoo Cho & Debashis Ghosh, 2021. "Quantile-Based Subgroup Identification for Randomized Clinical Trials," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 13(1), pages 90-128, April.
    16. Ahfock, Daniel & Pyne, Saumyadipta & McLachlan, Geoffrey J., 2022. "Statistical file-matching of non-Gaussian data: A game theoretic approach," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    17. Erastus Karanja & Aditya Sharma & Ibrahim Salama, 2020. "What does MIS survey research reveal about diversity and representativeness in the MIS field? A content analysis approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1583-1628, March.
    18. Yanqing Sun & Li Qi & Fei Heng & Peter B. Gilbert, 2020. "A hybrid approach for the stratified mark‐specific proportional hazards model with missing covariates and missing marks, with application to vaccine efficacy trials," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 69(4), pages 791-814, August.
    19. Jonathan Hambur & Gianni La Cava, 2018. "Do Interest Rates Affect Business Investment? Evidence from Australian Company-level Data," RBA Research Discussion Papers rdp2018-05, Reserve Bank of Australia.
    20. Arif Mamun & David Wittenburg & Noelle Denny-Brown & Michael Levere & David Mann & Rebecca Coughlin & Sarah Croake & Heather Gordon & Denise Hoffman & Rachel Holzwart & Rosalind Keith & Brittany McGil, "undated". "Promoting Opportunity Demonstration: Interim Evaluation Report," Mathematica Policy Research Reports caa99d38a8b14f968ea3438e5, Mathematica Policy Research.

    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:ininma:v:33:y:2013:i:5:p:734-751. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-information-management .

    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.