Comparison of maximum likelihood approach, Diggle-Kenward selection model, pattern mixture model with MAR and MNAR dropout data

被引:6
作者
Chen, Nan [1 ,5 ]
Li, Meijuan [2 ,3 ]
Liu, Hongyun [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Beijing Normal Univ, Fac Psychol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] Beijing Normal Univ, Collaborat Innovat Ctr Assessment Basic Educ Qual, Beijing, Peoples R China
[3] Beijing Acad Educ Sci, Beijing Res Ctr Educ Supervis & Qual Assessment, Beijing, Peoples R China
[4] Beijing Normal Univ, Natl Demonstrat Ctr Expt Psychol Educ, Fac Psychol, Beijing Key Lab Appl Expt Psychol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[5] IQVIA, Beijing, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Diggle-Kenward selection model; Latent growth curve model; Maximum likelihood approach; Missing not at random (MNAR); Pattern mixture model; MISSING-DATA; MULTIPLE IMPUTATION; LONGITUDINAL DATA; ML;
D O I
10.1080/03610918.2018.1506028
中图分类号
O21 [概率论与数理统计]; C8 [统计学];
学科分类号
020208 ; 070103 ; 0714 ;
摘要
In longitudinal studies, missing data are ubiquitous. This article made a comparison of three model-based techniques for handling different types of missing data (i.e., missing at random (MAR)-based maximum likelihood (ML) approach, missing not at random (MNAR)-based Diggle-Kenward (DK) selection model and MNAR-based pattern mixture (PM) model) in longitudinal studies through a Monte Carlo simulation study. Two influential factors were considered: the dropout rates (5%, 10%, 20%, and 40%) and the sample sizes (100, 300, 500, and 1000) under MAR and MNAR missingness mechanisms respectively. The results indicated that the model selection was a crucial issue when researchers were dealing with missing data in longitudinal studies because under MNAR mechanism, DK method outperformed MAR-based ML approach, but PM method performed worse than MAR-based method did. The differences of the parameter estimation among three methods became more significant as the sample size and the dropout rate increased.
引用
收藏
页码:1746 / 1767
页数:22
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]   Working with missing values [J].
Acock, AC .
JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY, 2005, 67 (04) :1012-1028
[2]   A latent-class mixture model for incomplete longitudinal Gaussian data [J].
Beunckens, Caroline ;
Molenberghs, Geert ;
Verbeke, Geert ;
Mallinckrodt, Craig .
BIOMETRICS, 2008, 64 (01) :96-105
[3]  
Bollen KA, 2006, WILEY SER PROBAB ST, P1
[4]   A comparison of multiple imputation and doubly robust estimation for analyses with missing data [J].
Carpenter, James R. ;
Kenward, Michael G. ;
Vansteelandt, Stijn .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, 2006, 169 :571-584
[5]   A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures [J].
Collins, LM ;
Schafer, JL ;
Kam, CM .
PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 2001, 6 (04) :330-351
[6]  
Daniels MJ, 2008, MONOGR STAT APPL PRO, V109, P1
[7]  
DIGGLE P, 1994, J ROY STAT SOC C, V43, P49
[8]   Bayesian latent variable models for clustered mixed outcomes [J].
Dunson, DB .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES B-STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY, 2000, 62 :355-366
[9]  
Enders C. K., 2010, Applied missing data analysis
[10]   A Primer on Maximum Likelihood Algorithms Available for Use With Missing Data [J].
Enders, Craig K. .
STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING-A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL, 2001, 8 (01) :128-141