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 at the end of May, and its replacement, statalist.org is already up and running.


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

Re: st: Imputing for missing proportions


From   Maarten Buis <maartenlbuis@gmail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: Imputing for missing proportions
Date   Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:08:56 +0200

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Alan Acock wrote:
> Nick is right that missing at random is a tough assumption, but it is easier than missing completely at random that is needed by listwise/case wise deletion.

Listwise deletion does not require MCAR, it only requires that the
probability of missingness is indepdent from the
response/explained/dependent/left-hand-side/y variable. See for
example: Paul D. Allison (2001) Missing Data. Thousand Oaks: Sage,
footnote 1. I find it a lot harder to a priori rank this assumption
against MAR in terms of reasonableness.

-- Maarten

---------------------------------
Maarten L. Buis
WZB
Reichpietschufer 50
10785 Berlin
Germany

http://www.maartenbuis.nl
---------------------------------
*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/


© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index