This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Newman, D. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Longitudinal Modeling with Randomly and Systematically Missing Data: A Simulation of Ad Hoc, Maximum Likelihood, and Multiple Imputation Techniques

The Pennsylvania State University, dan148{at}psu.edu

For organizational research on individual change, missing data can greatly reduce longitudinal sample size and potentially bias parameter estimates. Within the structural equation modeling framework, this article compares six missing data techniques (MDTs): listwise deletion, pairwise deletion, stochastic regression imputation, the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm, full information maximization likelihood (FIML), and multiple imputation (MI). The rationale for each technique is reviewed, followed by Monte Carlo analysis based on a threewave simulation of organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Parameter estimates and standard errors for each MDT are contrasted with complete-data estimates, under three mechanisms of missingness (completely random, random, and nonrandom) and three levels of missingness (25%, 50%, and 75%; all monotone missing). Results support maximum likelihood and MI approaches, which particularly outperform listwise deletion for parameters involving many recouped cases. Better standard error estimates are derived from FIML and MI techniques. All MDTs perform worse when data are missing nonrandomly.

Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 6, No. 3, 328-362 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/1094428103254673


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. E. Yoo The Effect of Auxiliary Variables and Multiple Imputation on Parameter Estimation in Confirmatory Factor Analysis Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 2009; 69(6): 929 - 947. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. A. Newman and H.-P. Sin How Do Missing Data Bias Estimates of Within-Group Agreement? Sensitivity of SD WG, CVWG, rWG(J), rWG(J) * , and ICC to Systematic Nonresponse Organizational Research Methods, January 1, 2009; 12(1): 113 - 147. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. W.-L. Cheung Comparison of Methods of Handling Missing Time-Invariant Covariates in Latent Growth Models Under the Assumption of Missing Completely at Random Organizational Research Methods, October 1, 2007; 10(4): 609 - 634. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Feng, M. Silverstein, R. Giarrusso, J. J. McArdle, and V. L. Bengtson Attrition of older adults in longitudinal surveys: detection and correction of sample selection bias using multigenerational data. J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., November 1, 2006; 61(6): S323 - S328. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. V. Hobman and P. Bordia The Role of Team Identification in the Dissimilarity-Conflict Relationship Group Processes Intergroup Relations, October 1, 2006; 9(4): 483 - 507. [Abstract] [PDF]