4.6 Article

Statistical methods for incomplete data: Some results on model misspecification

Journal

STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 248-267

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0962280214544251

Keywords

asymptotic bias; asymptotic variance; augmented inverse probability weighting; double robust; incomplete data; inverse probability weighting; model misspecification; multiple imputation

Funding

  1. Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada
  2. NSERC [RGPIN 155849]
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [FRN 13887]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Inverse probability weighted estimating equations and multiple imputation are two of the most studied frameworks for dealing with incomplete data in clinical and epidemiological research. We examine the limiting behaviour of estimators arising from inverse probability weighted estimating equations, augmented inverse probability weighted estimating equations and multiple imputation when the requisite auxiliary models are misspecified. We compute limiting values for settings involving binary responses and covariates and illustrate the effects of model misspecification using simulations based on data from a breast cancer clinical trial. We demonstrate that, even when both auxiliary models are misspecified, the asymptotic biases of double-robust augmented inverse probability weighted estimators are often smaller than the asymptotic biases of estimators arising from complete-case analyses, inverse probability weighting or multiple imputation. We further demonstrate that use of inverse probability weighting or multiple imputation with slightly misspecified auxiliary models can actually result in greater asymptotic bias than the use of naive, complete case analyses. These asymptotic results are shown to be consistent with empirical results from simulation studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available