↓ Skip to main content

Heckman imputation models for binary or continuous MNAR outcomes and MAR predictors

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Heckman imputation models for binary or continuous MNAR outcomes and MAR predictors
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0547-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacques-Emmanuel Galimard, Sylvie Chevret, Emmanuel Curis, Matthieu Resche-Rigon

Abstract

Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) requires specifying a suitable conditional imputation model for each incomplete variable and then iteratively imputes the missing values. In the presence of missing not at random (MNAR) outcomes, valid statistical inference often requires joint models for missing observations and their indicators of missingness. In this study, we derived an imputation model for missing binary data with MNAR mechanism from Heckman's model using a one-step maximum likelihood estimator. We applied this approach to improve a previously developed approach for MNAR continuous outcomes using Heckman's model and a two-step estimator. These models allow us to use a MICE process and can thus also handle missing at random (MAR) predictors in the same MICE process. We simulated 1000 datasets of 500 cases. We generated the following missing data mechanisms on 30% of the outcomes: MAR mechanism, weak MNAR mechanism, and strong MNAR mechanism. We then resimulated the first three cases and added an additional 30% of MAR data on a predictor, resulting in 50% of complete cases. We evaluated and compared the performance of the developed approach to that of a complete case approach and classical Heckman's model estimates. With MNAR outcomes, only methods using Heckman's model were unbiased, and with a MAR predictor, the developed imputation approach outperformed all the other approaches. In the presence of MAR predictors, we proposed a simple approach to address MNAR binary or continuous outcomes under a Heckman assumption in a MICE procedure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 21%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 8 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Mathematics 5 9%
Computer Science 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 15 26%
Unknown 20 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,311,934
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#529
of 2,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,866
of 335,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#9
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.