SEM with Missing Data and Unknown Population Distributions Using Two-Stage ML: Theory and Its Application

This article provides the theory and application of the 2-stage maximum likelihood (ML) procedure for structural equation modeling (SEM) with missing data. The validity of this procedure does not require the assumption of a normally distributed population. When the population is normally distributed and all missing data are missing at random (MAR), the direct ML procedure is nearly optimal for SEM with missing data. When missing data mechanisms are unknown, including auxiliary variables in the analysis will make the missing data mechanism more likely to be MAR. It is much easier to include auxiliary variables in the 2-stage ML than in the direct ML. Based on most recent developments for missing data with an unknown population distribution, the article first provides the least technical material on why the normal distribution-based ML generates consistent parameter estimates when the missing data mechanism is MAR. The article also provides sufficient conditions for the 2-stage ML to be a valid statistical procedure in the general case. For the application of the 2-stage ML, an SAS IML program is given to perform the first-stage analysis and EQS codes are provided to perform the second-stage analysis. An example with open- and closed-book examination data is used to illustrate the application of the provided programs. One aim is for quantitative graduate students/applied psychometricians to understand the technical details for missing data analysis. Another aim is for applied researchers to use the method properly.     

Methods for Mediation Analysis with Missing Data

Despite wide applications of both mediation models and missing data techniques, formal discussion of mediation analysis with missing data is still rare. We introduce and compare four approaches to dealing with missing data in mediation analysis including listwise deletion, pairwise deletion, multiple imputation (MI), and a two-stage maximum likelihood (TS-ML) method. An R package bmem is developed to implement the four methods for mediation analysis with missing data in the structural equation modeling framework, and two real examples are used to illustrate the application of the four methods. The four methods are evaluated and compared under MCAR, MAR, and MNAR missing data mechanisms through simulation studies. Both MI and TS-ML perform well for MCAR and MAR data regardless of the inclusion of auxiliary variables and for AV-MNAR data with auxiliary variables. Although listwise deletion and pairwise deletion have low power and large parameter estimation bias in many studied conditions, they may provide useful information for exploring missing mechanisms.     

基于增长模型的非随机缺失数据处理:选择模型和极大似然方法

对含有非随机缺失数据的潜变量增长模型,为了考察基于不同假设的缺失数据处理方法:极大似然(ML)方法与DiggleKenward选择模型的优劣,通过Monte Carlo模拟研究,比较两种方法对模型中增长参数估计精度及其标准误估计的差异,并考虑样本量、非随机缺失比例和随机缺失比例的影响。结果表明,符合前提假设的Diggle-Kenward选择模型的参数估计精度普遍高于ML方法;对于标准误估计值,ML方法存在一定程度的低估,得到的置信区间覆盖比率也明显低于Diggle-Kenward选择模型。     

认知诊断缺失数据处理方法的比较：零替换、多重插补与极大似然估计法

数据缺失在测验中经常发生, 认知诊断评估也不例外, 数据缺失会导致诊断结果的偏差。首先, 通过模拟研究在多种实验条件下比较了常用的缺失数据处理方法。结果表明：(1)缺失数据导致估计精确性下降, 随着人数与题目数量减少、缺失率增大、题目质量降低, 所有方法的PCCR均下降, Bias绝对值和RMSE均上升。(2)估计题目参数时, EM法表现最好, 其次是MI, FIML和ZR法表现不稳定。(3)估计被试知识状态时, EM和FIML表现最好, MI和ZR表现不稳定。其次, 在PISA2015实证数据中进一步探索了不同方法的表现。综合模拟和实证研究结果, 推荐选用EM或FIML法进行缺失数据处理。     

Estimating Incremental Validity Under Missing Data

A common form of missing data is caused by selection on an observed variable (e.g., Z). If the selection variable was measured and is available, the data are regarded as missing at random (MAR). Selection biases correlation, reliability, and effect size estimates when these estimates are computed on listwise deleted (LD) data sets. On the other hand, maximum likelihood (ML) estimates are generally unbiased and outperform LD in most situations, at least when the data are MAR. The exception is when we estimate the partial correlation. In this situation, LD estimates are unbiased when the cause of missingness is partialled out. In other words, there is no advantage of ML estimates over LD estimates in this situation. We demonstrate that under a MAR condition, even ML estimates may become biased, depending on how partial correlations are computed. Finally, we conclude with recommendations about how future researchers might estimate partial correlations even when the cause of missingness is unknown and, perhaps, unknowable.     

LGM模型中缺失数据处理方法的比较:ML方法与Diggle-Kenward选择模型

追踪研究中缺失数据十分常见。本文通过Monte Carlo模拟研究,考察基于不同前提假设的Diggle-Kenward选择模型和ML方法对增长参数估计精度的差异,并考虑样本量、缺失比例、目标变量分布形态以及不同缺失机制的影响。结果表明:(1)缺失机制对基于MAR的ML方法有较大的影响,在MNAR缺失机制下,基于MAR的ML方法对LGM模型中截距均值和斜率均值的估计不具有稳健性。(2)DiggleKenward选择模型更容易受到目标变量分布偏态程度的影响,样本量与偏态程度存在交互作用,样本量较大时,偏态程度的影响会减弱。而ML方法仅在MNAR机制下轻微受到偏态程度的影响。     

2PLM下缺失数据处理方法及其比较

项目反应理论(IRT)是用于客观测量的现代教育与心理测量理论之一,广泛用于缺失数据十分常见的大尺度测验分析。IRT中两参数逻辑斯蒂克模型(2PLM)下仅有完全随机缺失机制下缺失反应和缺失能力处理的EM算法。本研究推导2PLM下缺失反应忽略的EM 算法,并提出随机缺失机制下缺失反应和缺失能力处理的EM算法和考虑能力估计和作答反应不确定性的多重借补法。研究显示：在各种缺失机制、缺失比例和测验设计下,缺失反应忽略的EM算法和多重借补法表现理想。     

Abstract: Evaluation of Test Statistics for Robust Structural Equation Modeling With Nonnormal Missing Data

Traditional structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques have trouble dealing with incomplete and/or nonnormal data that are often encountered in practice. Yuan and Zhang (2011a) developed a two-stage procedure for SEM to handle nonnormal missing data and proposed four test statistics for overall model evaluation. Although these statistics have been shown to work well with complete data, their performance for incomplete data has not been investigated in the context of robust statistics.

Focusing on a linear growth curve model, a systematic simulation study is conducted to evaluate the accuracy of the parameter estimates and the performance of five test statistics including the naive statistic derived from normal distribution based maximum likelihood (ML), the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square statistic (RML), the mean- and variance-adjusted chi-square statistic (AML), Yuan-Bentler residual-based test statistic (CRADF), and Yuan-Bentler residual-based F statistic (RF). Data are generated and analyzed in R using the package rsem (Yuan & Zhang, 2011b).

Based on the simulation study, we can observe the following: (a) The traditional normal distribution-based method cannot yield accurate parameter estimates for nonnormal data, whereas the robust method obtains much more accurate model parameter estimates for nonnormal data and performs almost as well as the normal distribution based method for normal distributed data. (b) With the increase of sample size, or the decrease of missing rate or the number of outliers, the parameter estimates are less biased and the empirical distributions of test statistics are closer to their nominal distributions. (c) The ML test statistic does not work well for nonnormal or missing data. (d) For nonnormal complete data, CRADF and RF work relatively better than RML and AML. (e) For missing completely at random (MCAR) missing data, in almost all the cases, RML and AML work better than CRADF and RF. (f) For nonnormal missing at random (MAR) missing data, CRADF and RF work better than AML. (g) The performance of the robust method does not seem to be influenced by the symmetry of outliers.     

A Class of Distribution-Free Models for Longitudinal Mediation Analysis

Mediation analysis constitutes an important part of treatment study to identify the mechanisms by which an intervention achieves its effect. Structural equation model (SEM) is a popular framework for modeling such causal relationship. However, current methods impose various restrictions on the study designs and data distributions, limiting the utility of the information they provide in real study applications. In particular, in longitudinal studies missing data is commonly addressed under the assumption of missing at random (MAR), where current methods are unable to handle such missing data if parametric assumptions are violated. In this paper, we propose a new, robust approach to address the limitations of current SEM within the context of longitudinal mediation analysis by utilizing a class of functional response models (FRM). Being distribution-free, the FRM-based approach does not impose any parametric assumption on data distributions. In addition, by extending the inverse probability weighted (IPW) estimates to the current context, the FRM-based SEM provides valid inference for longitudinal mediation analysis under the two most popular missing data mechanisms; missing completely at random (MCAR) and missing at random (MAR). We illustrate the approach with both real and simulated data.     

Postmodeling Sensitivity Analysis to Detect the Effect of Missing Data Mechanisms

Incomplete or missing data is a common problem in almost all areas of empirical research. It is well known that simple and ad hoc methods such as complete case analysis or mean imputation can lead to biased and/or inefficient estimates. The method of maximum likelihood works well; however, when the missing data mechanism is not one of missing completely at random (MCAR) or missing at random (MAR), it too can result in incorrect inference. Statistical tests for MCAR have been proposed, but these are restricted to a certain class of problems. The idea of sensitivity analysis as a means to detect the missing data mechanism has been proposed in the statistics literature in conjunction with selection models where conjointly the data and missing data mechanism are modeled. Our approach is different here in that we do not model the missing data mechanism but use the data at hand to examine the sensitivity of a given model to the missing data mechanism. Our methodology is meant to raise a flag for researchers when the assumptions of MCAR (or MAR) do not hold. To our knowledge, no specific proposal for sensitivity analysis has been set forth in the area of structural equation models (SEM). This article gives a specific method for performing postmodeling sensitivity analysis using a statistical test and graphs. A simulation study is performed to assess the methodology in the context of structural equation models. This study shows success of the method, especially when the sample size is 300 or more and the percentage of missing data is 20% or more. The method is also used to study a set of real data measuring physical and social self-concepts in 463 Nigerian adolescents using a factor analysis model.     

Pairwise likelihood estimation for confirmatory factor analysis models with categorical variables and data that are missing at random

Methods for the treatment of item non-response in attitudinal scales and in large-scale assessments under the pairwise likelihood (PL) estimation framework and under a missing at random (MAR) mechanism are proposed. Under a full information likelihood estimation framework and MAR, ignorability of the missing data mechanism does not lead to biased estimates. However, this is not the case for pseudo-likelihood approaches such as the PL. We develop and study the performance of three strategies for incorporating missing values into confirmatory factor analysis under the PL framework, the complete-pairs (CP), the available-cases (AC) and the doubly robust (DR) approaches. The CP and AC require only a model for the observed data and standard errors are easy to compute. Doubly-robust versions of the PL estimation require a predictive model for the missing responses given the observed ones and are computationally more demanding than the AC and CP. A simulation study is used to compare the proposed methods. The proposed methods are employed to analyze the UK data on numeracy and literacy collected as part of the OECD Survey of Adult Skills.     

Identifying Variables Responsible for Data not Missing at Random

When data are not missing at random (NMAR), maximum likelihood (ML) procedure will not generate consistent parameter estimates unless the missing data mechanism is correctly modeled. Understanding NMAR mechanism in a data set would allow one to better use the ML methodology. A survey or questionnaire may contain many items; certain items may be responsible for NMAR values in other items. The paper develops statistical procedures to identify the responsible items. By comparing ML estimates (MLE), statistics are developed to test whether the MLEs are changed when excluding items. The items that cause a significant change of the MLEs are responsible for the NMAR mechanism. Normal distribution is used for obtaining the MLEs; a sandwich-type covariance matrix is used to account for distribution violations. The class of nonnormal distributions within which the procedure is valid is provided. Both saturated and structural models are considered. Effect sizes are also defined and studied. The results indicate that more missing data in a sample does not necessarily imply more significant test statistics due to smaller effect sizes. Knowing the true population means and covariances or the parameter values in structural equation models may not make things easier either. The research was supported by NSF grant DMS04-37167, the James McKeen Cattell Fund.     

Missing not at random models for latent growth curve analyses

The past decade has seen a noticeable shift in missing data handling techniques that assume a missing at random (MAR) mechanism, where the propensity for missing data on an outcome is related to other analysis variables. Although MAR is often reasonable, there are situations where this assumption is unlikely to hold, leading to biased parameter estimates. One such example is a longitudinal study of substance use where participants with the highest frequency of use also have the highest likelihood of attrition, even after controlling for other correlates of missingness. There is a large body of literature on missing not at random (MNAR) analysis models for longitudinal data, particularly in the field of biostatistics. Because these methods allow for a relationship between the outcome variable and the propensity for missing data, they require a weaker assumption about the missing data mechanism. This article describes 2 classic MNAR modeling approaches for longitudinal data: the selection model and the pattern mixture model. To date, these models have been slow to migrate to the social sciences, in part because they required complicated custom computer programs. These models are now quite easy to estimate in popular structural equation modeling programs, particularly Mplus. The purpose of this article is to describe these MNAR modeling frameworks and to illustrate their application on a real data set. Despite their potential advantages, MNAR-based analyses are not without problems and also rely on untestable assumptions. This article offers practical advice for implementing and choosing among different longitudinal models.     

Dual imputation model for incomplete longitudinal data

Missing values are a practical issue in the analysis of longitudinal data. Multiple imputation (MI) is a well‐known likelihood‐based method that has optimal properties in terms of efficiency and consistency if the imputation model is correctly specified. Doubly robust (DR) weighing‐based methods protect against misspecification bias if one of the models, but not necessarily both, for the data or the mechanism leading to missing data is correct. We propose a new imputation method that captures the simplicity of MI and protection from the DR method. This method integrates MI and DR to protect against misspecification of the imputation model under a missing at random assumption. Our method avoids analytical complications of missing data particularly in multivariate settings, and is easy to implement in standard statistical packages. Moreover, the proposed method works very well with an intermittent pattern of missingness when other DR methods can not be used. Simulation experiments show that the proposed approach achieves improved performance when one of the models is correct. The method is applied to data from the fireworks disaster study, a randomized clinical trial comparing therapies in disaster‐exposed children. We conclude that the new method increases the robustness of imputations.     

Establishing normative data for repeated cognitive assessment: A comparison of different statistical methods

Serial cognitive assessment is conducted to monitor changes in the cognitive abilities of patients over time. At present, mainly the regression-based change and the ANCOVA approaches are used to establish normative data for serial cognitive assessment. These methods are straightforward, but they have some severe drawbacks. For example, they can only consider the data of two measurement occasions. In this article, we propose three alternative normative methods that are not hampered by these problems—that is, multivariate regression, the standard linear mixed model (LMM), and the linear mixed model combined with multiple imputation (LMM with MI) approaches. The multivariate regression method is primarily useful when a small number of repeated measurements are taken at fixed time points. When the data are more unbalanced, the standard LMM and the LMM with MI methods are more appropriate because they allow for a more adequate modeling of the covariance structure. The standard LMM has the advantage that it is easier to conduct and that it does not require a Monte Carlo component. The LMM with MI, on the other hand, has the advantage that it can flexibly deal with missing responses and missing covariate values at the same time. The different normative methods are illustrated on the basis of the data of a large longitudinal study in which a cognitive test (the Stroop Color Word Test) was administered at four measurement occasions (i.e., at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 years later). The results are discussed and suggestions for future research are provided.     

Estimating age change in list recall in asset and health dynamics of the oldest-old: the effects of attrition bias and missing data treatment

Average change in list recall was evaluated as a function of missing data treatment (Study 1) and dropout status (Study 2) over ages 70 to 105 in Asset and Health Dynamics of the Oldest-Old data. In Study 1 the authors compared results of full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) and the multiple imputation (MI) missing-data treatments with and without independent predictors of missingness. Results showed declines in all treatments, but declines were larger for FIML and MI treatments when predictors were included in the treatment of missing data, indicating that attrition bias was reduced. In Study 2, models that included dropout status had better fits and reduced random variance compared with models without dropout status. The authors conclude that change estimates are most accurate when independent predictors of missingness are included in the treatment of missing data with either MI or FIML and when dropout effects are modeled.     

How to handle missing data: A comparison of different approaches

Many researchers face the problem of missing data in longitudinal research. Especially, high risk samples are characterized by missing data which can complicate analyses and the interpretation of results. In the current study, our aim was to find the most optimal and best method to deal with the missing data in a specific study with many missing data on the outcome variable. Therefore, different techniques to handle missing data were evaluated, and a solution to efficiently handle substantial amounts of missing data was provided. A simulation study was conducted to determine the most optimal method to deal with the missing data. Results revealed that multiple imputation (MI) using predictive mean matching was the most optimal method with respect to lowest bias and the smallest confidence interval (CI) while maintaining power. Listwise deletion and last observation carried backward also scored acceptable with respect to bias; however, CIs were much larger and sample size almost halved using these methods. Longitudinal research in high risk samples could benefit from using MI in future research to handle missing data. The paper ends with a checklist for handling missing data.     

Full Information Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Latent Variable Interactions With Incomplete Indicators

Researchers have developed missing data handling techniques for estimating interaction effects in multiple regression. Extending to latent variable interactions, we investigated full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation to handle incompletely observed indicators for product indicator (PI) and latent moderated structural equations (LMS) methods. Drawing on the analytic work on missing data handling techniques in multiple regression with interaction effects, we compared the performance of FIML for PI and LMS analytically. We performed a simulation study to compare FIML for PI and LMS. We recommend using FIML for LMS when the indicators are missing completely at random (MCAR) or missing at random (MAR) and when they are normally distributed. FIML for LMS produces unbiased parameter estimates with small variances, correct Type I error rates, and high statistical power of interaction effects. We illustrated the use of these methods by analyzing the interaction effect between advanced cancer patients’ depression and change of inner peace well-being on future hopelessness levels.     

Asymptotic bias of normal-distribution-based maximum likelihood estimates of moderation effects with data missing at random

Moderation analysis is useful for addressing interesting research questions in social sciences and behavioural research. In practice, moderated multiple regression (MMR) models have been most widely used. However, missing data pose a challenge, mainly because the interaction term is a product of two or more variables and thus is a non-linear function of the involved variables. Normal-distribution-based maximum likelihood (NML) has been proposed and applied for estimating MMR models with incomplete data. When data are missing completely at random, moderation effect estimates are consistent. However, simulation results have found that when data in the predictor are missing at random (MAR), NML can yield inaccurate estimates of moderation effects when the moderation effects are non-null. Simulation studies are subject to the limitation of confounding systematic bias with sampling errors. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to analytically derive asymptotic bias of NML estimates of moderation effects with MAR data. Results show that when the moderation effect is zero, there is no asymptotic bias in moderation effect estimates with either normal or non-normal data. When the moderation effect is non-zero, however, asymptotic bias may exist and is determined by factors such as the moderation effect size, missing-data proportion, and type of missingness dependence. Our analytical results suggest that researchers should apply NML to MMR models with caution when missing data exist. Suggestions are given regarding moderation analysis with missing data.     

Evaluation of maximum-likelihood estimators in nonintensive auditory psychophysics

This is a brief report on the use of maximum-likelihood (ML) estimators in auditory psychophysics. Slope parameters of psychometric functions are characterized for three nonintensive auditory tasks: forced-choice discrimination of interaural time differences (ΔITD), frequency (Δf), and duration (Δt). Using these slope estimates, the ML method is implemented and threshold estimates are obtained for the three tasks and compared with previously published data. ΔITD thresholds were additionally measured for human observers by means of two other psychophysical procedures: the constant-stimuli (CS) and the 2-down 1-up methods (Wetherill & Levitt, 1965). Standard errors were smallest for the ML method. Finally, simulations showed ML estimates to be more efficient than the CS andk-down 1-up procedures fork=2 to 5. For up—down procedures, efficiency was highest fork values of 3 and 4. The entropy (Shannon, 1949) of ML estimates was the smallest of the simulated procedures, but poorer than ideal by 0.5 bits.