Toward a standardized evaluation of imputation methodology
- PMID: 36932050
- DOI: 10.1002/bimj.202200107
Toward a standardized evaluation of imputation methodology
Abstract
Developing new imputation methodology has become a very active field. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on how to perform simulation studies to evaluate the properties of imputation methods. In part, this may be due to different aims between fields and studies. For example, when evaluating imputation techniques aimed at prediction, different aims may be formulated than when statistical inference is of interest. The lack of consensus may also stem from different personal preferences or scientific backgrounds. All in all, the lack of common ground in evaluating imputation methodology may lead to suboptimal use in practice. In this paper, we propose a move toward a standardized evaluation of imputation methodology. To demonstrate the need for standardization, we highlight a set of possible pitfalls that bring forth a chain of potential problems in the objective assessment of the performance of imputation routines. Additionally, we suggest a course of action for simulating and evaluating missing data problems. Our suggested course of action is by no means meant to serve as a complete cookbook, but rather meant to incite critical thinking and a move to objective and fair evaluations of imputation methodology. We invite the readers of this paper to contribute to the suggested course of action.
Keywords: evaluation; imputation; missing data; simulation studies.
© 2023 The Authors. Biometrical Journal published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
Comment in
-
Comment on Oberman & Vink: Should we fix or simulate the complete data in simulation studies evaluating missing data methods?Biom J. 2024 Jan;66(1):e2300085. doi: 10.1002/bimj.202300085. Epub 2023 Oct 12. Biom J. 2024. PMID: 37823668
References
REFERENCES
-
- Abayomi, K., Gelman, A., & Levy, M. (2008). Diagnostics for multivariate imputations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 57(3), 273-291.
-
- Barnard, J., & Rubin, D. B. (1999). Miscellanea. small-sample degrees of freedom with multiple imputation. Biometrika, 86(4), 948-955.
-
- Bartlett, J. W., Seaman, S. R., White, I. R., Carpenter, J. R., & Initiative*, A. D. N. (2015). Multiple imputation of covariates by fully conditional specification: Accommodating the substantive model. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 24(4), 462-487.
-
- Bondarenko, I., & Raghunathan, T. (2016). Graphical and numerical diagnostic tools to assess suitability of multiple imputations and imputation models. Statistics in Medicine, 35(17), 3007-3020.
-
- Cai, M., Van Buuren, S., & Vink, G. (2022). Graphical and numerical diagnostic tools to assess multiple imputation models by posterior predictive checking. arXiv preprint. arXiv:2208.12929. https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.12929
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
