CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 177Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferencePsychometric Methodologies and TestingSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Influence of Imputation and EM Methods on Factor Analysis when Item Nonresponse in Questionnaire Data is Nonignorable

Bernaards, Coen A., Sijtsma, Klaas·2000·Multivariate Behavioral Research
DOI 10.1207/s15327906mbr3503_03
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study deals with the influence of each of twelve imputation methods and two methods using the EM algorithm on the results of maximum likelihood factor analysis as compared with results obtained from the complete data factor analysis (no missing scores). Complete questionnaire rating scale data were simulated and, next, missing item scores were created under both ignorable and nonignorable nonresponse mechanisms. Next, imputation methods were used to fill the gaps and factor analysis was applied to both the original complete data and to the data sets including imputed scores. Each imputation method was implemented once with residual error and once without residual error. Also, one EM method estimated the factor loadings directly and the other estimated the complete data covariance matrix, which subsequently was factor analyzed. A design was analyzed with design factors Latent Trait Structure (technically called Mixing Configuration), Correlation Between Latent Traits, Nonresponse Mechanism, Percentage of Missingness, Sample Size, and Imputation Method. We found that, in general, methods that impute a score based on a respondent's mean score obtained from his/her observed item scores best recovered the factor loadings structure from the complete data. Moreover, for unidimensional data person mean methods with a residual error gave better results than the other imputation methods, either with or without a residual error component. For the EM methods a smaller design was analyzed. The conclusion was that both EM methods better recovered the complete data factor loadings than the imputation methods.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327906mbr3503_03

Cites

38 of 38 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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Acock A. C., 1997, Family Science Review, 10, 76
  2. Likert R. A., 1932, Archives of Psychology, 140, 149
  3. Liu C., 1998, Statistica Sinica, 8, 729

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 177

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bernaards, C. A., & Sijtsma, K.
ORCID
Sijtsma, Klaas
Venue
Multivariate Behavioral Research
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2000-07
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
321-364
ISSN
  • 0027-3171 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7906
DOI
10.1207/s15327906mbr3503_03
OpenAlex
W2111095327
Cited by
177
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
6.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Multivariate Behavioral Research (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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
missing data imputation, nonignorable nonresponse, maximum likelihood factor analysis, expectation-maximization algorithm, questionnaire data, item nonresponse, factor loadings, residual error, simulation study

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