Cited by 148Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and Applications

Multiple Imputation Under Violated Distributional Assumptions: A Systematic Evaluation of the Assumed Robustness of Predictive Mean Matching

Kleinke, Kristian·2017·Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics

Abstract

Predictive mean matching (PMM) is a standard technique for the imputation of incomplete continuous data. PMM imputes an actual observed value, whose predicted value is among a set of k ≥ 1 values (the so-called donor pool), which are closest to the one predicted for the missing case. PMM is usually better able to preserve the original distribution of the empirical data than fully parametric multiple imputation (MI) approaches, when empirical data deviate from their distributional assumptions. Use of PMM is therefore especially worthwhile in situations where model assumptions of fully parametric MI procedures are violated and where fully parametric procedures would yield highly implausible estimates. Unfortunately, today there are only a handful of studies that systematically tested the robustness of PMM and it is still widely unknown where exactly the limits of this procedure lie. I examined the performance of PMM in situations where data were skewed to varying degrees, under different sample sizes, missing data percentages, and using different settings of the PMM approach. It was found that small donor pools overall yielded better results than large donor pools and that PMM generally worked well, unless data were highly skewed and more than about 20% to 30% of the data had to be imputed. Also, PMM generally performed better when sample size was sufficiently large.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/1076998616687084

Cites

36 of 36 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kleinke, K.
Affiliations
FernUniversität in Hagen (DE)
Corresponding author
Kleinke, Kristian
Venue
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics
Published
2017-01-24
Volume
42
Issue
4
Pages
371-404
ISSN
  • 1076-9986 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-1054
OpenAlex
W2606442136
Cited by
148
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
  • Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld (Universität Bielefeld) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
Keywords
predictive mean matching, multiple imputation, missing data, robustness, skewed data, sample size effects, distributional assumptions

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