Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: A correlation matrix after multiple imputation

From   Richard Williams <>
Subject   Re: st: A correlation matrix after multiple imputation
Date   Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:50:21 -0500

At 01:24 PM 7/23/2010, Alan Acock wrote:
Some journals request a correlation matrix and vector of standard deviations. The American Psychological Association stresses this in their journals. When doing multiple imputations, I'm unclear how to proceed.
4. I've seen manuscripts where people say here is the correlation matrix (casewise) before the multiple imputation, but this seems to be inconsistent with the entire logic of doing multiple imputation.

One rationale for presenting means/correlations/standard deviations is that it provides a means by which people could replicate your regression analyses without having the full data set. Of course, that isn't true anymore once you use MI. I kind of like option 4, because at least you are still getting descriptive measures. I suppose a critical issue, though, is how do the casewise statistics compare with the MI statistics?

My own personal intuition is that I should be happiest with MI when it increases my N, reduces the standard errors, and makes more of the effects significant. If, however, I start seeing sign flips or major differences in my substantive conclusions, then I feel more nervous. Perhaps my intuition is wrong though?

Richard Williams, Notre Dame Dept of Sociology
OFFICE: (574)631-6668, (574)631-6463
HOME:   (574)289-5227
EMAIL:  Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.Edu

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index