Improving Imputation Accuracy in Ordinal Data Using Classification

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 557)

Abstract

Tackling missing data is one of the fundamental data pre-processing steps. Data analysis and pattern extraction are affected due to the underlying differences between instances with and without missing data. This is a particular problem with ordinal data, where for example a sample of a population may have all failed to answer a specific question in a questionnaire. The existing methods such as listwise deletion, mean attribute substitution, and regression substitution, naively impute data. They do not impute plausible values as they fail to take into account the relationships between the attributes, but instead consider the distribution of the attribute with missing values only. In this paper we introduce the use of Classification Based Imputation (CNI) to replace missing values with plausible values in ordinal data. The results show that not only does the CNI based technique outperform the existing approaches for imputing missing values in ordinal data but it also helps to improve the classification accuracy of machine learning algorithms.

References

  1. 1.
    Frank, E., Hall, M.: A simple approach to ordinal classification. In: Raedt, L., Flach, P. (eds.) ECML 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2167, pp. 145–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi:10.1007/3-540-44795-4_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Little, R.J., Rubin, D.B.: Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. Wiley, New York (1987)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schafer, J.L., Graham, J.W.: Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol. Methods 7(2), 147 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Leeuw, E.D., Hox, J., Huisman, M.: Prevention and treatment of item nonresponse. J. Official Stat.-Stockh. 19(2), 153–176 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Finch, W.H.: Imputation methods for missing categorical questionnaire data: a comparison of approaches. J. Data Sci. 8(3), 361–378 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Su, X., Greiner, R., Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Napolitano, A.: Using classifier-based nominal imputation to improve machine learning. In: Huang, J.Z., Cao, L., Srivastava, J. (eds.) PAKDD 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6634, pp. 124–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20841-6_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huhn, J.C., Hullermeier, E.: Is an ordinal class structure useful in classifier learning? Int. J. Data Min. Modell. Manag. 1(1), 45–67 (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Leeuw, E.D.: Reducing missing data in surveys: an overview of methods. Qual. Quan. 35(2), 147–160 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Downey, R.G., King, C.V.: Missing data in likert ratings: a comparison of replacement methods. J. Gen. Psychol. 125(2), 175–191 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raaijmakers, Q.A.: Effectiveness of different missing data treatments in surveys with likert-type data: introducing the relative mean substitution approach. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 59(5), 725–748 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Su, X., Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Greiner, R.: Using imputation techniques to help learn accurate classifiers. In: 20th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI 2008, vol. 1, pp. 437–444. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Batista, G.E., Monard, M.C.: An analysis of four missing data treatment methods for supervised learning. Appl. Artif. Intell. 17(5–6), 519–533 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business and ITWhitireia Community PolytechnicAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations