Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 299

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Imputation Techniques for Handling Missing Data

Musil, Carol M., Warner, Camille B., Yobas, Piyanee Klainin, Jones, Susan L.·2002·Western Journal of Nursing Research

Abstract

Researchers are commonly faced with the problem of missing data. This article presents theoretical and empirical information for the selection and application of approaches for handling missing data on a single variable. An actual data set of 492 cases with no missing values was used to create a simulated yet realistic data set with missing at random (MAR) data. The authors compare and contrast five approaches (listwise deletion, mean substitution, simple regression, regression with an error term, and the expectation maximization [EM] algorithm) for dealing with missing data, and compare the effects of each method on descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for the imputed data (n = 96) and the entire sample (n = 492) when imputed data are included. All methods had limitations, although our findings suggest that mean substitution was the least effective and that regression with an error term and the EM algorithm produced estimates closest to those of the original variables.

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 · 10.1177/019394502762477004

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Musil, C. M., Warner, C. B., Yobas, P. K., & Jones, S. L.
Venue
Western Journal of Nursing Research
Published
2002-11
Volume
24
Issue
7
Pages
815-829
ISSN
  • 0193-9459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8456
OpenAlex
W2130347324
Cited by
299
References
1
FWCI
3.60
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.