Cited by 322Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferencePsychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Analyzing longitudinal data with missing values

Enders, Craig K.·2011·Rehabilitation Psychology

Abstract

Missing data methodology has improved dramatically in recent years, and popular computer programs now offer a variety of sophisticated options. Despite the widespread availability of theoretically justified methods, researchers in many disciplines still rely on subpar strategies that either eliminate incomplete cases or impute the missing scores with a single set of replacement values. This article provides readers with a nontechnical overview of some key issues from the missing data literature and demonstrates several of the techniques that methodologists currently recommend. This article begins by describing Rubin's missing data mechanisms. After a brief discussion of popular ad hoc approaches, the article provides a more detailed description of five analytic approaches that have received considerable attention in the missing data literature: maximum likelihood estimation, multiple imputation, the selection model, the shared parameter model, and the pattern mixture model. Finally, a series of data analysis examples illustrate the application of these methods.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0025579

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Full information maximum likelihood with robust standard errors is a better missing-data strategy than listwise deletion and matches multiple imputation when data are missing at random.

    “We used full information maximum likelihood with robust standard errors in Mplus. This is a superior strategy to listwise deletion and equivalent to using multiple imputation techniques when data are assumed to be missing at random (Enders, 2011).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Enders, C. K.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Enders, Craig K.
Venue
Rehabilitation Psychology
Published
2011
Volume
56
Issue
4
Pages
267-288
ISSN
  • 0090-5550 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1544
OpenAlex
W1970308312
Cited by
321
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Rehabilitation Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
missing data, longitudinal data, maximum likelihood estimation, multiple imputation, selection model, shared parameter models, pattern-mixture models, complete case analysis, missing data methods
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Research Design, Likelihood Functions

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