Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: st: Imputing for missing proportions
From
Maarten Buis <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
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/