CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,411Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferencePsychometric Methodologies and TestingMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Missing Data: Five Practical Guidelines

Newman, Daniel A.·2014·Organizational Research Methods
DOI 10.1177/1094428114548590
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Missing data (a) reside at three missing data levels of analysis (item-, construct-, and person-level), (b) arise from three missing data mechanisms (missing completely at random, missing at random, and missing not at random) that range from completely random to systematic missingness, (c) can engender two missing data problems (biased parameter estimates and inaccurate hypothesis tests/inaccurate standard errors/low power), and (d) mandate a choice from among several missing data treatments (listwise deletion, pairwise deletion, single imputation, maximum likelihood, and multiple imputation). Whereas all missing data treatments are imperfect and are rooted in particular statistical assumptions, some missing data treatments are worse than others, on average (i.e., they lead to more bias in parameter estimates and less accurate hypothesis tests). Social scientists still routinely choose the more biased and error-prone techniques (listwise and pairwise deletion), likely due to poor familiarity with and misconceptions about the less biased/less error-prone techniques (maximum likelihood and multiple imputation). The current user-friendly review provides five easy-to-understand practical guidelines, with the goal of reducing missing data bias and error in the reporting of research results. Syntax is provided for correlation, multiple regression, and structural equation modeling with missing data.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1094428114548590

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 66 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.468 · DOI
  2. 10.1201/b16018 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Mistler S. A., 2013, Proceedings of the SAS Global Forum
  4. 10.1177/014920639802400107 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,001

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Newman, D. A.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Newman, Daniel A.
ORCID
Newman, Daniel A.
Venue
Organizational Research Methods
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2014-09-26
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
372-411
ISSN
  • 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7425
DOI
10.1177/1094428114548590
OpenAlex
W2047813468
Cited by
1,411
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 188 · 2025: 225 · 2024: 234 · 2023: 174 · 2022: 153 · 2021: 141 · 2020: 96 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 1
FWCI
28.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Organizational Research Methods (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
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
missing data, missing data mechanisms, missing completely at random, missing at random, missing not at random, listwise deletion, pairwise deletion, single imputation, maximum likelihood estimation, multiple imputation, missing data bias, statistical power, structural equation modeling, multiple linear regression, correlation

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