2012
DOI: 10.1177/1536867x1201200301
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diagnostics for Multiple Imputation in Stata

Abstract: Our new command makes diagnostic plots for multiple imputations created by . The plots compare the distribution of the imputed values with that of the observed values so that problems with the imputation model can be corrected before the imputed data are analyzed. We include an example and suggest extensions to other diagnostics.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
66
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 93 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
66
0
Order By: Relevance
“…After an initial 5 imputation to test convergence, we increased imputation to 60 and burn-in iteration by 50. We carried out imputation sensitivity analysis and checked the fit of the imputation model using the Stata command “Midiagplots”[42]. For all analyses using imputed data, estimates were combined across the imputed datasets based to Rubin's rules[43].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After an initial 5 imputation to test convergence, we increased imputation to 60 and burn-in iteration by 50. We carried out imputation sensitivity analysis and checked the fit of the imputation model using the Stata command “Midiagplots”[42]. For all analyses using imputed data, estimates were combined across the imputed datasets based to Rubin's rules[43].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the imputation model, we included all explanatory variables listed above, including the outcome variable and the Nelson‐Aalenestimate of the cumulative hazard to the survival time for each individual outcome assessment . We conducted diagnostics using the midiagplots function in Stata . Within each of the 10 imputed datasets and using all the covariates listed above, we calculated a propensity score, wherein AA was the reference group for drug comparison (Appendix A).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Missing data were addressed via multiple imputation in which twenty complete data sets, a number recommended to help ensure stable parameter and standard error estimates (Graham, Olchowski, and Gilreath 2007), were constructed using Stata’s implementation of multiple imputation with chained equations (StataCorp 2013). Diagnostic tests of the imputed data indicated that the values did not appreciably depart from the distributions of the variables in the original dataset (Eddings and Marchenko 2012). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%