The effect of auxiliary variables and multiple imputation on parameter estimation in confirmatory factor analysis

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 69, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 929-947

  Yoo, Jin Eun ^a  

^a Physical Education and School Sports Support Group   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Auxiliary variables; Confirmatory factor analysis; Missing data; Multiple imputation; Test validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449834993     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164409332225     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Allison, P.D. (2001). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Allison, P.D. (2003). Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 545-557.
3. Arbuckle, J.L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling (pp. 243-277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Barnard, J., & Meng, X. (1999). Applications of multiple imputation in medical studies: From AIDS to NHANES. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 17-36.
5. Brown, R.L. (1994). Efficacy of the indirect approach for estimating structural equation models with missing data: A comparison of five methods. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 287-316.
6. Collins, L.M., Schafer, J.L., & Kam, C. (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6, 330-351.
7. Enders, C.K. (2001). The impact of nonnormality on full information maximum-likelihood estimation for structural equation models with missing data. Psychological Methods, 6, 352-370.
8. Enders, C.K. (2006). Analyzing structural equation models with missing data. In G. Hancock & R. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 313-342). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
9. Enders, C.K., & Bandalos, D.L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430-457.
10. Enders, C.K., & Peugh, J.L. (2004). Using an EM covariance matrix to estimate structural equation models with missing data: Choosing an adjusted sample size to improve the accuracy of inferences. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 1-19.
11. Gelman, A., Carlin, J.B., Stern, H.S., & Rubin, D.B. (1995). Bayesian data analysis. London: Chapman & Hall.
12. Gold, M.S., & Bentler, P.M. (2000). Treatments of missing data: A Monte Carlo comparison of RBHDI, iterative stochastic regression imputation, and expectation-maximization. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 319-355.
13. Gold, M.S., Bentler, P.M., & Kim, K.H. (2003). A comparison of maximum-likelihood and asymptotically distribution-free methods of treating incomplete nonnormal data. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 47-79.
14. Grahan, J.W. (2003). Adding missing-data-relevant variables to FIML-based structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 80-100.
15. Horton, N.J., & Kleinman, K.P. (2007). Much ado about nothing: A comparison of missing data methods and software to fit incomplete data regression models. The American Statistician, 61, 79-90.
16. Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1993). PRELIS 2: User's reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
17. Little, R.J.A., & Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
18. Marsh, H.W. (1998). Pairwise deletion for missing data in structural equation models: Nonpositive definite matrices, parameter estimates, goodness of fit, and adjusted sample sizes. Structural Equation Modeling, 5, 22-36.
19. Marsh, H.W., Ellis, L., Parada, L., Richards, G., & Heubeck, B.G. (2005). A short version of the Self Description Questionnaire II: Operationalizing criteria for short-form evaluation with new applications of confirmatory factor analyses. Psychological Assessment, 17, 81-102.
20. Muthen, B., Kaplan, D., & Hollis, M. (1987). On structural equation modeling with data that are not missing completely at random. Psychometrika, 52, 431-462.
21. Newman, D.A. (2003). Longitudinal modeling with randomly and systematically missing data: A simulation of ad hoc, maximum likelihood, and multiple imputation techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 328-362.
22. Olinsky, A., Chen, S., & Harlow, L. (2003). The comparative efficacy of imputation methods for missing data in structural equation modeling. European Journal of Operational Research, 15, 53-79.
23. Rubin, D.B. (1996). Multiple imputation after 18 + years. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 473-489.
24. SAS Institute. (2001). The SAS system for windows. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
25. Savalei, V., & Bentler, P.M. (2005). A statistically justified pairwise ML method for incomplete nonnormal data: A comparison with direct ML and pairwise ADF. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 183-214.
26. Schafer, J.L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. New York: Chapman & Hall.
27. Schafer, J.L. (1999). Software for multiple imputation. Retrieved August 26, 2008, http://www.stat.psu.edu/~jls/misoftwa.html.
28. Schafer, J.L., & Graham, J.W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177.
29. Schafer, J.L., & Olsen, M.K. (1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate missing data problems: A data analyst's perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 545-571.
30. Van Buuren, S., Boshuizen, H.C., & Knook, D.L. (1999). Multiple imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 18, 681-694.
31. Wothke, W. (2000). Longitudinal and multi-group modeling with missing data. In T. D. Little, K. U. Schnabel, & J. Baumer (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multiple group data: Practical issues, applied approaches, and specific examples (pp. 219-240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.