IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Efficiency comparison of methods for estimation in longitudinal regression models

Listed author(s):
  • Qu, Roger P.
  • Shao, Jun
  • Palta, Mari
Registered author(s):

    Estimation of the mean response in a longitudinal regression model can be based on a model which relates the response variable to a set of covariates. Often, for reasons of cost, time, and practicality, a larger set of covariates may be available at the model development stage than in later applications of the model. There are two different approaches to dealing with covariates which will not be available in later applications. Clearly, one can, even at the model development stage, simply ignore covariates which will not be collected later. Alternatively, one may apply the approach of simultaneous equations or the approach of handling missing data, where the covariates which will be unavailable are estimated or imputed from the available covariates. When data are not longitudinal, these two approaches produce the same result. When data are longitudinal, however, they are different, although both of them provide almost unbiased estimates and predictions. The purpose of this study is to compare the relative efficiency of these two methods when data are longitudinal. We find that when the unavailable covariates are in fact not related to the response variable, the two methods have the same performance in terms of asymptotic efficiency; otherwise neither method is uniformly better than the other. In specific situations, asymptotic relative efficiency between the two methods can be estimated so that the better method can be selected.

    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.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Statistics & Probability Letters.

    Volume (Year): 55 (2001)
    Issue (Month): 2 (November)
    Pages: 125-135

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:stapro:v:55:y:2001:i:2:p:125-135
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:stapro:v:55:y:2001:i:2:p:125-135. 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)

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.