{"title":"处理增长混合模型中的缺失数据","authors":"D. Y. Lee, Jeffrey R. Harring","doi":"10.3102/10769986221149140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A Monte Carlo simulation was performed to compare methods for handling missing data in growth mixture models. The methods considered in the current study were (a) a fully Bayesian approach using a Gibbs sampler, (b) full information maximum likelihood using the expectation–maximization algorithm, (c) multiple imputation, (d) a two-stage multiple imputation method, and (e) listwise deletion. Of the five methods, it was found that the Bayesian approach and two-stage multiple imputation methods generally produce less biased parameter estimates compared to maximum likelihood or single imputation methods, although key differences were observed. Similarities and disparities among methods are highlighted and general recommendations articulated.","PeriodicalId":48001,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics","volume":"48 1","pages":"320 - 348"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Handling Missing Data in Growth Mixture Models\",\"authors\":\"D. Y. Lee, Jeffrey R. Harring\",\"doi\":\"10.3102/10769986221149140\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A Monte Carlo simulation was performed to compare methods for handling missing data in growth mixture models. The methods considered in the current study were (a) a fully Bayesian approach using a Gibbs sampler, (b) full information maximum likelihood using the expectation–maximization algorithm, (c) multiple imputation, (d) a two-stage multiple imputation method, and (e) listwise deletion. Of the five methods, it was found that the Bayesian approach and two-stage multiple imputation methods generally produce less biased parameter estimates compared to maximum likelihood or single imputation methods, although key differences were observed. Similarities and disparities among methods are highlighted and general recommendations articulated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"320 - 348\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986221149140\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986221149140","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Monte Carlo simulation was performed to compare methods for handling missing data in growth mixture models. The methods considered in the current study were (a) a fully Bayesian approach using a Gibbs sampler, (b) full information maximum likelihood using the expectation–maximization algorithm, (c) multiple imputation, (d) a two-stage multiple imputation method, and (e) listwise deletion. Of the five methods, it was found that the Bayesian approach and two-stage multiple imputation methods generally produce less biased parameter estimates compared to maximum likelihood or single imputation methods, although key differences were observed. Similarities and disparities among methods are highlighted and general recommendations articulated.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, sponsored jointly by the American Educational Research Association and the American Statistical Association, publishes articles that are original and provide methods that are useful to those studying problems and issues in educational or behavioral research. Typical papers introduce new methods of analysis. Critical reviews of current practice, tutorial presentations of less well known methods, and novel applications of already-known methods are also of interest. Papers discussing statistical techniques without specific educational or behavioral interest or focusing on substantive results without developing new statistical methods or models or making novel use of existing methods have lower priority. Simulation studies, either to demonstrate properties of an existing method or to compare several existing methods (without providing a new method), also have low priority. The Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics provides an outlet for papers that are original and provide methods that are useful to those studying problems and issues in educational or behavioral research. Typical papers introduce new methods of analysis, provide properties of these methods, and an example of use in education or behavioral research. Critical reviews of current practice, tutorial presentations of less well known methods, and novel applications of already-known methods are also sometimes accepted. Papers discussing statistical techniques without specific educational or behavioral interest or focusing on substantive results without developing new statistical methods or models or making novel use of existing methods have lower priority. Simulation studies, either to demonstrate properties of an existing method or to compare several existing methods (without providing a new method), also have low priority.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
