Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 311

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of techniques for treating missing data in OM survey research

Tsikriktsis, Nikos·2005·Journal of Operations Management

Abstract

The treatment of missing data has been overlooked by the OM literature, while other fields such as marketing, organizational behavior, economics, statistics and psychometrics have paid more attention to the issue. A review of 103 survey‐based articles published in the Journal of Operations Management between 1993 and 2001 shows that listwise deletion, which is often the least accurate technique of dealing with missing data, is heavily utilized by OM researchers. The paper also discusses the research implications of missing data, types of missing data and concludes with recommendations on which techniques should be used under different circumstances in order to improve the treatment of missing data in OM survey research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jom.2005.03.001

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Tsikriktsis, N.
Venue
Journal of Operations Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-05-12
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
53-62
ISSN
  • 0272-6963 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-1317
OpenAlex
W1989203151
Cited by
311
References
2
FWCI
4.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.