Comparisons of Imputation Methods with Application to Assess Factors Associated with Self Efficacy of Physical Activity in Breast Cancer Survivors
- Authors
- Zhang, Y.; Kim, Soeun; Lin, Y.; Baum, G; Basen-Engquist, K.M.; Swartz, M.D.
- Issue Date
- Sep-2019
- Publisher
- Taylor and Francis
- Citation
- Communications in Statistics Part B: Simulation and Computation, v.48, no.8, pp.2523 - 2537
- Journal Title
- Communications in Statistics Part B: Simulation and Computation
- Volume
- 48
- Number
- 8
- Start Page
- 2523
- End Page
- 2537
- URI
- http://scholarworks.bwise.kr/ssu/handle/2018.sw.ssu/31725
- DOI
- 10.1080/03610918.2018.1458132
- ISSN
- 0361-0918
- Abstract
- Missing data are commonly encountered in self-reported measurements and questionnaires. It is crucial to treat missing values using appropriate method to avoid bias and reduction of power. Various types of imputation methods exist, but it is not always clear which method is preferred for imputation of data with non-normal variables. In this paper, we compared four imputation methods: mean imputation, quantile imputation, multiple imputation, and quantile regression multiple imputation (QRMI), using both simulated and real data investigating factors affecting self-efficacy in breast cancer survivors. The results displayed an advantage of using multiple imputation, especially QRMI when data are not normal.
- Files in This Item
- There are no files associated with this item.
- Appears in
Collections - College of Natural Sciences > ETC > 1. Journal Articles
![qrcode](https://api.qrserver.com/v1/create-qr-code/?size=55x55&data=https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/ssu/handle/2018.sw.ssu/31725)
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.