Sensitivity analysis in multiple imputation in effectiveness studies of psychotherapy
Open accessAbstract
The importance of preventing and treating incomplete data in effectiveness studies is nowadays emphasized. However, most of the publications focus on randomized clinical trials (RCT). One flexible technique for statistical inference with missing data is multiple imputation (MI). Since methods such as MI rely on the assumption of missing data being at random (MAR), a sensitivity analysis for testing the robustness against departures from this assumption is required. In this paper we present a sensitivity analysis technique based on posterior predictive checking, which takes into consideration the concept of clinical significance used in the evaluation of intra-individual changes. We demonstrate the possibilities this technique can offer with the example of irregular longitudinal data collected with the Outcome Questionnaire-45 (OQ-45) and the Helping Alliance Questionnaire (HAQ) in a sample of 260 outpatients. The sensitivity analysis can be used to (1) quantify the degree of bias introduced by missing not at random data (MNAR) in a worst reasonable case scenario, (2) compare the performance of different analysis methods for dealing with missing data, or (3) detect the influence of possible violations to the model assumptions (e.g., lack of normality). Moreover, our analysis showed that ratings from the patient's and therapist's version of the HAQ could significantly improve the predictive value of the routine outcome monitoring based on the OQ-45. Since analysis dropouts always occur, repeated measurements with the OQ-45 and the HAQ analyzed with MI are useful to improve the accuracy of outcome estimates in quality assurance assessments and non-randomized effectiveness studies in the field of outpatient psychotherapy.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
A sensitivity analysis will be performed to test robustness against departures from the assumption of missing data being at random.
“We also plan to perform sensitivity analysis to test the robustness against departures from the assumption of missing data being at random following the technique explained in Crameri et al. [89].”
From Effectiveness and mediators of change of an online CBT intervention for students with adjustment disorder—study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2023) · cites this paper as [89]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 66 · Cited by 24
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- National Research Council. (2010). The Prevention and Treatment of Missing Data in Clinical Trials. Panel on Handling Missing Data in Clinical Trials. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
- Authors
- Crameri, A., von Wyl, A., Koemeda, M., Schulthess, P., & Tschuschke, V.
- Affiliations
- ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences (CH)
- University of Cologne (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Crameri, Aureliano
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2015-07-27
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- 1042-1042
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4515885
- OpenAlex
- W1581692816
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 3.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
- Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften digital collection (Zurich University of Applied Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- ZHAW Digital Collection (cc-by)
- Frontiers in Psychiatry (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- multiple imputation, sensitivity analysis, missing data, missing not at random, missing at random, posterior predictive checking, psychotherapy effectiveness, outpatient psychotherapy, longitudinal data, Outcome Questionnaire-45, Helping Alliance Questionnaire, routine outcome monitoring, dropout
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