Psychometrika

, Volume 58, Issue 1, pp 79–85 | Cite as

Should “multiple imputations” be treated as “multiple indicators”?

  • Robert J. Mislevy
Notes And Comments

Abstract

Rubin's “multiple imputation” approach to missing data creates synthetic data sets, in which each missing variable is replaced by a draw from its predictive distribution, conditional on the observed data. By construction, analyses of such filled-in data sets as if the imputations were true values have the correct expectations for population parameters. In a recent paper, Mislevy showed how this approach can be applied to estimate the distributions of latent variables from complex samples. Multiple imputations for a latent variable bear a surface similarity to classical “multiple indicators” of a latent variable, as might be addressed in structural equation modelling or hierarchical modelling of successive stages of random sampling. This note demonstrates with a simple example why analyzing “multiple imputations” as if they were “multiple indicators” does not generally yield correct results; they must instead be analyzed by means concordant with their construction.

Key words

multiple imputation multiple indicators National Assessment of Educational Progress plausible values 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beaton, A. E. (1987).The NAEP 1983/84 technical report (NAEP Report 15-TR-20). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  2. Beaton, A. E. (1988).The NAEP 1985/86 technical report (NAEP Report 17-TR-20). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  3. Goldstein, H. (1987).Multilevel models in educational and social research. London: Griffin, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Johnson, E. G., & Zwick, R. (1990).The NAEP 1987/88 technical report (NAEP Report 19-TR-20). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  5. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989).LISREL 7: User's reference guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
  6. Mislevy, R. J. (1991). Randomization-based inference about latent variables from complex samples.Psychometrika, 56, 177–196.Google Scholar
  7. Mislevy, R. J., Beaton, A. E., Kaplan, B., & Sheehan, K. M. (1992). Estimating population characteristics from sparse matrix samples of item responses.Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 133–161.Google Scholar
  8. Muthén, B. (1988).LISCOMP [computer program]. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
  9. Rubin, D. B. (1977). Formalizing subjective notions about the effect of nonrespondents in sample surveys.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 72, 538–543.Google Scholar
  10. Rubin, D. B. (1987).Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychometric Society 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Mislevy
    • 1
  1. 1.Educational Testing ServicePrinceton

Personalised recommendations