Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Jan;66(1):e2200107.
doi: 10.1002/bimj.202200107. Epub 2023 Mar 17.

Toward a standardized evaluation of imputation methodology

Affiliations
Review

Toward a standardized evaluation of imputation methodology

Hanne I Oberman et al. Biom J. 2024 Jan.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

Comment in

References

REFERENCES

    1. 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.
    1. Barnard, J., & Rubin, D. B. (1999). Miscellanea. small-sample degrees of freedom with multiple imputation. Biometrika, 86(4), 948-955.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources