JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ALLSTAT Archives


ALLSTAT Archives

ALLSTAT Archives


allstat@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ALLSTAT Home

ALLSTAT Home

ALLSTAT  1999

ALLSTAT 1999

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

thanks : missingness query

From:

Sam <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Sam <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:41:25 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (189 lines)

Dear All,

Thanks very much to those who replied to my query on what are
considered acceptable (unacceptable) levels of 'missingness',
either in analyses of complete data or (if appropriate) of imputed
data (having done checks for biases, patterns of missingness etc,
etc).

No-one really came up with an answer to the question, perhaps not
surprisingly, but one frequent and useful piece of advice was to
include a sensitivity analysis. The replies - diverse in content
(not to mention tone) - were all interesting and are listed below.


Best wishes,

Sam.

Sam Pattenden
EEU
LSHTM
0171-927-2316.

=========================================
From: [log in to unmask] (N T Longford)
To: SAM PATTENDEN@LSHTM
Subject: Re: Missing Outcome Data - Acceptable Levels?
Date sent: 16-Mar-99 14:21:15 +0000


In various areas of epidemiology there are `acceptable' levels of
non-response. But they do not refer to the validity of the analyses
which ignore the issue of missingness. They merely reflect the
percentage of nonrespondents that would be obtained in all went well
in data collection. It is a gross misunderstanding to regard such a
percentage as a licence to ignore missingness.

Multiple imputation works, in principle, for whatever the proportion
of nonresponders, because the uncertainty about the missing data is
reflected in the imputations. When the proportion is very large, say,
25%+, the customary number of 5 imputations may not be sufficient, but
7 or 9 may do. Multiple imputation can be supplemented by sensitivity
analysis, exploring how changes in the assumptions about the process
of missingness impact on the conclusions obtained.

If only 55% of the children have (complete) records, I would not take
the complete data analysis seriously, and hope neither would anybody
else.

        Nick Longford,
        [log in to unmask]

========
From: [log in to unmask] (Jane Hutton)
To: SAM PATTENDEN@LSHTM (Sam)
Subject: Re: Missing Outcome Data - Acceptable Levels?
Date sent: 16-Mar-99 15:15:36 +0000

Dear Sam

My general rules are:
1. be completely explicit about what you've done (by way of
jettisoning) and what went wrong. 2. make a serious attempt to
estimate the possible biases arising from missing data (or at least
the bounds of the biases).

On 2, for eg., if you have 55% response, and 40% of the responders say
'yes' to a question, you know that overall between .4 times .55 (=22%)
and .4 times .55 plus .45 (=.67%) of the sample might answer 'yes'. So
40% could be anywhere from 22% to 67%, and that's before you get to
the confidence intervals.

best wishes
Jane

========
From: [log in to unmask] (Annette Dobson)
To: SAM PATTENDEN@LSHTM (Sam)
Subject: Re: Missing Outcome Data - Acceptable Levels?
Date sent: 16-Mar-99 21:48:16 +0000

Dear Sam
 As we progress with the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health my
views of what is 'OK' for missing data become more rigorous. As soon as you
start doing any multivariate, including longitudinal, analyses case-wise
deleting starts cutting sample size down enormously, even if data were
truly missing at random and no bias is being introduced. My goal is
therefore 'none'.
 Annette

==========
From: [log in to unmask] (David X Briggs)
To: SAM PATTENDEN@LSHTM
Subject: Re: Missing Outcome Data - Acceptable Levels?
Date sent: 17-Mar-99 9:43:36 +0000


          Dear Sam,

          So far as I am concerned, it is not possible to give an
          'acceptable' level of missing data, based on these facts
          alone. However there are some points which should be
          considered when analysing your data.

          a) I think the crucial consideration, that you already seem
          to be investigating, is 'What is the nature of the technical
          problem?'. This has caused you to discard some of your
          outcomes, resulting in a smaller sample size, but it might
          also have more serious implications. Suppose for some reason
          the discarded outcomes would have all been higher responses
          than the observed subjects - this might happen if your lung
          function machine tended to give spurious results for people
          with higher lung function measurements. Ignoring this
          potential selection bias would introduce an obvious
          estimation bias into your analysis.

          b) Imputation methods do not get around the possible bias introduced
          in (a). Imputation methods impute values based on the observed data -
          if the distribution of the discarded data is not the same as that of
          the observed data, then the imputed values will only represent samples

          from the observed data, and do not therefore get around the bias
          problem.

          c) Multiple imputation does not get around the bias poblem, but it
          does at least maintain your sample size which helps to maintain the
          precision of your estimates.

          d) I would start by doing a worse and a best case scenario. This
          involves imputing the lowest and highest possible values for the
          missing cases. You can then determine the sensitivity of your analyses

          to these extremes. If your analyses are robust to these extremes, then

          you have little to worry about, if your analyses are sensitive, then
          you need to think again.

          e) On a more positive note, if you can consider that your technical
          problem does not introduce a selection bias, then multiple imputation
          or some other suitable method (Bayesian imputation, EM algorithm)
          would be fine.

          f) A good reference on this is by Little and Rubin, and is called (I
          think) Statistical Inference with Missing Data.

          Hope this is of some use.

          Best Wishes,
          David Briggs.

===========
From: [log in to unmask] (Andrew McCulloch)
Send reply to: [log in to unmask]
To: SAM PATTENDEN@LSHTM (Sam)
Subject: Re: Missing Outcome Data - Acceptable Levels?
Date sent: 17-Mar-99 14:28:16 +0000


Sam ,

 For me the most important issue to form a view on
is whether the missing outcomes are missing at random or
whether missingness is informative - related to child
health. If it is informative then you will have problems.

Hope you are well.

Yours sincerely
Andrew McCulloch

=============

From: [log in to unmask] (Rob Nichols)
To: SAM PATTENDEN@LSHTM ('Sam')
Subject: RE: Missing Outcome Data - Acceptable Levels?
Date sent: 18-Mar-99 16:12:11 +0000

How about using a Bayesian framework?

Rob

====================================
====================================
                                    
                                                 


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager