jenny h. qin and mike singleton kentucky codes kentucky injury prevention & research center
DESCRIPTION
Performing Sensitivity Analyses of Imputed Missing Values. Jenny H. Qin and Mike Singleton Kentucky CODES Kentucky Injury Prevention & Research Center University of Kentucky. Multiple Imputation in Public Health Research. Handling Missing Data in Nursing Research with Multiple Imputation. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
July 14July 14thth, 2003, 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Jenny H. Qin and Mike Singleton
Kentucky CODESKentucky Injury Prevention & Research Center
University of Kentucky
Performing Sensitivity Analyses of Imputed Missing
Values
Multiple Imputation in Public Health Research
Handling Missing Data in Nursing Research with Multiple Imputation
Application of Multiple Imputation in Medical Studies: from AIDS to NHANES
NHTSA: Transitioning to Multiple Imputation!
A new Method to Impute Missing BAC values in FARS Multiple Imputation
Publications
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Questions???Questions???•May I use MI to deal with missing
data problems for my data sets?
•How can I believe that the MI will give me better analysis results?
•What should I do to get good results from MI?
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
??????
AnswersAnswers
Sensitivity Analyses Sensitivity Analyses on Imputed Valueson Imputed Values
A sensitivity analysis A sensitivity analysis tests if our study tests if our study results are sensitive results are sensitive to our assumptions to our assumptions (missing data (missing data mechanism), data mechanism), data conditions (missing conditions (missing data rate), and data rate), and choices (imputation choices (imputation models or number of models or number of imputations) made imputations) made for obtaining the for obtaining the resultsresults
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
MI ProcessMI Process
Data Set of Interest
Missing Data Mechanism1
Missing Data Rate2
Proc MI
Results
Analysis Model
Imputation Model3
Proc MI Options
4
Set 1
Set 3
Set 2
Set n
.
.
.
ProcMIANALYZE
Set n
Results n
Results 3
Results 2
Results 1
.
.
.
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Research Question: What was the relationship between driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, and being killed or hospitalized in a crash, for motorcycle riders in Kentucky in 2001?
Outcome (Dependent Variable): Killed or Hospitalized (K/H)
Risk Factor Candidates (Independent Variables): Age, gender, suspected DUI, posted speed limit, helmet use,
fixed object, head-on collision, collision time, rural vs. urban
CODES ApplicationCODES Application
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Logistic Regression Model:K/H = β0 + β1*DUI + β2*Speed + β3*Fixed + β4*Head-On
Total records in our study Data set: 1,226
Records with missing values: 14 (1.1%)
Analysis Model
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Results for the Gold StandardResults for the Gold StandardParamet
erOR(95%
CI)Estimate SE P
DUI 2.51 (1.58 3.98)
0.9189 0.2364 0.0001
Speed 1.58 (1.18 2.10)
0.4546 0.1456 0.0018
Fixed 1.70 (1.24 2.33)
0.5311 0.1599 0.0009
Head-on 1.70 (1.04 2.77)
0.5316 0.2486 0.0380
This Gold Standard result is used to compare with all other results.
Conclusion: comparing motorcyclists with DUI to motorcyclists without DUI, the odds of being killed or hospitalized are 2.5 times greater than the odds of not being killed or hospitalized, when other factors are controlled.
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Analysis Model:K/H = β0 + β1*DUI + β2*Speed + β3*Fixed + β4*Head-On
Imputation Model:K/H DUI Speed Fixed Head-On
Note: The imputation model does not have to be identical to the analysis model, but at least it should include all of the analysis covariates. You can add any additional variables that are correlated to the variables that have missing values.
Imputation Model
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
MCAR MAR NMAR
Study Data Set
Missing Data Mechanism1
Missing Data Rate2
Proc MIData
Analysis Proc
MIANALYZE
Results
Analysis Model
Imputation Model3
Proc MI options4
SA:SA: Missing Data Mechanism1
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
SA:SA:• Missing Completely At Random (MCAR)
– DFN: the missing data values are a simple random sample of all data values.
– We simulated this condition by using SAS Proc SurveySelect to pick a random sample from the study data set, then set DUI = missing for those selected cases.
• Missing At Random (MAR) - DFN: the probability of missing values on one variable is unrelated to
the values of this variable, after controlling for other variables in the analysis
- We simulated this condition by setting DUI = missing for riders aged 46 or older
• Not Missing At Random (NMAR) – DFN: the probability of missing values on one variable is related to the
values of this variable even if we control other variables in the analysis– We simulated this condition by setting DUI = missing for uninjured
riders who were not suspected of DUI (DUI=‘NO’).
Missing Data Mechanism1
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Created 3 data sets from the study data set with different missing data mechanisms, but with the same percent missing values for DUI (25%)
MCAR25% missing on
DUI
MAR25% missing on
DUI
NMAR25% missing on
DUIParameter E SE P E SE P E SE P
Intercept -1.7336 0.1096 0.0001 -1.7259 0.1092 0.0001 -1.7204 0.1092 0.0001
DUI 0.8544 0.2664 0.0016 0.8286 0.2623 0.0018 0.5791 0.2223 0.0092
Speed 0.5018 0.1449 0.0005 0.4843 0.1448 0.0008 0.4812 0.1443 0.0009
Fixed 0.4927 0.1610 0.0022 0.5079 0.1597 0.0015 0.5400 0.1578 0.0006
Head-on 0.5133 0.2485 0.0388 0.5133 0.2486 0.0389 0.5103 0.2475 0.0393
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Sensitivity analysis on missing data mechanism:
Different
Same
Same
Same
What is the result?
Imputation Model3
Proc MI Options4
Missing Data Rate (25%)2
Missing Data Mechanism1
Estimates for Parameters with Different Missing Data Mechanisms
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Estim
ate
GoldStdMCARMARNMAR
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Conclusions of SA on Missing Data Mechanism
•Even if we used the simplest imputation model MI was able to produce results that are consistent with the Gold Standard when the missing data mechanisms were MCAR or MAR, but not NMAR
•we would predict the increased odds of death or hospitalization for riders suspected of DUI to be 1.78 (1.15 2.76) for NMAR, while our Gold Standard predicts it to be 2.51 (1.58 3.98).
Point Estimate and 95% CI for DUI with Different Missing Data Mechanisms
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
GoldStd MCAR MAR NMAR
Odd
s R
atio
95%CI_upper
Point Estimate
95%CI_lower
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
6% 25% 50%
Study Data Set
Missing Data Mechanism1
Missing Data Rate2
Proc MIData
Analysis Proc
MIANALYZE
Results
Analysis Model
Imputation Model3
Proc MI options4
SA:SA: Missing Data Rate2
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
SA:SA:
•Data sets with MCAR (Test on percentage of values missing for DUI as 6%, 25%, 50% respectively)
•Data sets with MAR (Test on percentage of values missing for DUI as 6%, 25%, 50% respectively)
Missing Data Rate2
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Create 3 data sets with MCAR from the study data set having values missing for DUI as 6%, 25%, and 50% respectively.
MCAR6% missing on DUI
MCAR25% missing on
DUI
MCAR50% missing on
DUIParameter E SE P E SE P E SE P
Intercept -1.7361 0.1094 0.0001 -1.7336 0.1096 0.0001 -1.7377 0.1119 0.0001
DUI 0.9447 0.2429 0.0001 0.8544 0.2664 0.0016 0.8457 0.2973 0.0065
Speed 0.4812 0.1446 0.0009 0.5018 0.1449 0.0005 0.4831 0.1460 0.0009
Fixed 0.5213 0.1584 0.0010 0.4927 0.1610 0.0022 0.5200 0.1617 0.0013
Head-on 0.5245 0.2489 0.0351 0.5133 0.2485 0.0388 0.4936 0.2508 0.0490
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Create 3 data sets with MAR from the study data set having values missing for DUI as 6%, 25%, and 50% respectively.
MAR6% missing on DUI
MAR25% missing on
DUI
MAR50% missing on
DUIParameter E SE P E SE P E SE P
Intercept -1.7382 0.1095 0.0001 -1.7259 0.1092 0.0001 -1.7502 0.1109 0.0001
DUI 0.9191 0.2334 0.0001 0.8286 0.2623 0.0018 1.2722 0.3298 0.0002
Speed 0.4836 0.1449 0.0008 0.4843 0.1448 0.0008 0.5063 0.1473 0.0006
Fixed 0.5076 0.1590 0.0014 0.5079 0.1597 0.0015 0.5234 0.1597 0.0010
Head-on 0.5174 0.2486 0.0374 0.5133 0.2486 0.0389 0.5371 0.2487 0.0308
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Sensitivity analysis on Missing Data Rate?
Same
Different
Same
Same
What is the result?
Imputation Model3
Proc MI Options4
Missing Data Rate 2
Missing Data MechanismMCAR or MAR
1
Estimates for Parameters with Different Missing Rates
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
DUI Speed Fixed Head-on
Estim
ate
GoldStdMAR6%MAR25%MAR50%MCAR6%MCAR25%MCAR50%
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Conclusions of SA on Missing Data Rate• For both missing data mechanisms, the 50% missing case produced the DUI parameter estimate farthest from the Gold Standard estimate, as well as the widest 95% CI. However, for MCAR the difference from the Gold Standard estimate was -7%, whereas for MAR it was 42%. In addition, the 95% CI for 50%MCAR was 19% wider than the Gold Standard 95% CI, whereas for 50%MAR it was 106% wider.
•It shows that the simplest imputation model is not sufficient to handle very high missing data rates .
Point Estimate and 95%CI for DUI with Different Missing Data Rates
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Odd
s Ra
tio
95%CI_upper
Point Estimate
95%CI_lower
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Study Data Set
Missing Data Mechanism1
Missing Data Rate2
Proc MIData
Analysis Proc
MIANALYZE
Results
Analysis Model
Imputation Model3
Proc MI options2
SA:SA: Imputation Model3
Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
SA:SA:
• Data set with MAR and values missing for DUI=50%
• Tests on the following 4 Imputation models
– Model1: D/H DUI Speed Fixed Head-onModel1 = Analysis model, it is the simplest imputation model
– Model2: Model1 + age_group + colltime (Categorical)
– Model3: Model1 + age_group + hour (Continuous)
– Model4: Model1 + age_group + hour_normal (Continuous)We are adding age and collision time to help predict DUI in Model2, Model3, and Model4
Imputation Model3
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Use 4 different imputation models to do MI on the same data set with MAR, 50% missing on DUI.
Model 250% missing on DUI
Model 350% missing on
DUI
Model 450% missing on
DUIParameter E SE P E SE P E SE P
Intercept -1.8110 0.1222 0.0001 -1.8081 0.1235 0.0001 -1.8034 0.1238 0.0001
DUI 1.0127 0.2948 0.0016 0.9814 0.2966 0.0024 0.9563 0.2813 0.0015
Speed 0.5079 0.1466 0.0005 0.5021 0.1463 0.0006 0.5081 0.1469 0.0005
Fixed 0.5370 0.1604 0.0008 0.5404 0.1601 0.0007 0.5371 0.1598 0.0008
Head-on 0.5554 0.2537 0.0286 0.5477 0.2552 0.0320 0.5561 0.2521 0.0274
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Sensitivity analysis on Imputation Model
Same
Same
Different
Same
What is the result?
Imputation Models3
Proc MI Options4
Missing Data Rate (50%)2
Missing Data MechanismMAR
1
Estimates for Parameters with Different Imputation Models
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Est
imat
es
GoldStdNoMIModel1Model2Model3Model4
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Conclusions of SA on Imputation Models
•Models 2, 3, and 4 are all improvements over model 1, and produced DUI parameter estimates and 95% CI widths close to those of the Gold Standard.
•So even with 50% missing values (MAR), we are able to get a good result by using a richer imputation model.
•The higher percent missing values (MAR) in your data set, the more you must include additional predictors in the imputation model.
Point Estimate and 95% CI for DUI with Different Imputation Models
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
NoMI Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 GoldStd
Odd
s R
atio
95%CI_upper
Point Estimate
95%CI_lower
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Comparison of No MI and Model 4 to the Gold StandardComparison of No MI and Model 4 to the Gold Standard
Estimates for Parameters (Data set with 50% MAR on DUI)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
DUI Speed Fixed Head-on
Est
imat
es
GoldStd
NoMI
Model4
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Comparison of No MI and Model 4 to the Gold StandardComparison of No MI and Model 4 to the Gold Standard
Point Estimate and 95% CI for DUI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Od
ds
Rat
ioPoint Estimate and 95% CI for Speed
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Od
ds
Rat
io
Point Estimate and 95% CI for Fixed
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Od
ds
Rat
io
Point Estimate and 95% CI for Head-on
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Odd
s R
atio
No MI
G.S.
G.S.
G.S.
G.S.
MI
MI
MI
MI
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Study Data Set
Missing Data Mechanism1
Missing Data Rate2
Proc MIData
Analysis Proc
MIANALYZE
Results
Analysis Model
Imputation Model3
Proc MI: number of MI4
N=2N=0 N=5 N=10 N=20
SA:SA: Proc MI: Number of Imputations4
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
SA:SA:
• Data set with MAR and values missing for DUI=50%, use Model4 to do MI
• Test on different number of imputations– N=0
– N=2
– N=5
– N=10
– N=20
4 Proc MI: Number of Imputations
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Use same imputation model (Model4), but different number of imputations to do MI on the same data set with MAR, 50% missing on DUI.
N=550% missing on DUI
N=1050% missing on
DUI
N=2050% missing on
DUIParameter E SE P E SE P E SE P
Intercept -1.7975 0.1177 0.0001 -1.8034 0.1238 0.0001 -1.7898 0.1204 0.0001
DUI 0.8658 0.2537 0.0023 0.9563 0.2813 0.0015 0.9942 0.3176 0.0026
Speed 0.4971 0.1457 0.0006 0.5081 0.1469 0.0005 0.5016 0.1465 0.0006
Fixed 0.5448 0.1610 0.0007 0.5371 0.1598 0.0008 0.5286 0.1599 0.0010
Head-on 0.5652 0.2522 0.0251 0.5561 0.2521 0.0274 0.5506 0.2509 0.0282
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Sensitivity analysis on Number of Imputations
Same
Same
Same
Different
What is the result?
Imputation Model3
Number of Imputation4
Missing Data Rate (50%)2
Missing Data MechanismMAR
1
Estimates for Parameters with Different Number of Imputations
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Estim
ates
GoldStdNoMIMI N2MI N5MI N10MI N20
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Conclusions of SA on Number of Imputations
•In our example, n=5 to 10 is enough to get good results for data set with 50% MAR on DUI.
•No MI (complete cases only), we would conclude that: motorcyclists with DUI had 4.2 (2.1, 8.4) times more likely killed or hospitalized than motorcyclists without DUI. But from the Gold Standard, the OR is 2.5 (1.5, 4.0)
Point Estimate and 95% CI for DUI with Different Imputation Numbers
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
n=0 n=2 n=5 GoldStd n=10 n=20
Odd
s R
atio
95%CI_upper
Point Estimate
95%CI_lower
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Summary---Answers?Summary---Answers?• May I use MI to deal with missing data problems
for my data sets?Seems a good idea to try MI. Depend on the missing data mechanisms of variables with missing values in your data sets (however, even our results with MI for NMAR were better than No MI)
• How can I believe that the MI will give me the better analysis results?We found that using MI on our example gave us much better analysis results than No MI (the complete cases only)
• How can I get better analysis results by using MI?Understand the relationship between variables in your data sets; Know the missing data mechanisms of variables;Determine the percent of missing information;Build a reasonable imputation model;Use Proc MI options wisely
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Q1. I like Denver.Q1. I like Denver.
Q2. I like TRF.Q2. I like TRF.
Q3. I liked the talk.Q3. I liked the talk.
Q4. I will use the MI.Q4. I will use the MI.
Missing Data Problems
Everywhere
Poll ResultsPoll ResultsLike Denver Like TRF Liked the Talk Use MI
Y Y Y Y
Missing (left session early)
Y Missing (too nice to say “NO”)
N
Y N Y Y
Y N N Missing (not sure yet)
N Missing (daydreaming)
Y Y
Missing (fell asleep)
Y Missing N
N N N Missing
N Missing Y Y
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Acknowledgment
Special thanks to Dr. Mike McGlincy, who gave us helpful suggestions during our study of sensitivity analyses on imputed values and insightful comments on the analysis results.
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Thank You
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Questions?
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Can We Improve Analysis Results for Can We Improve Analysis Results for NMAR by Using a More Complex NMAR by Using a More Complex
Imputation Model?Imputation Model?
Estimates for Parameters on 25% NMAR with Different Models
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
DUI Speed Fixed Head-on
Estim
ates
GoldStdNoMIModel1Model4Model5
Model5=Model1+age+hour+gender+safety
Model4=Model1+age+hour
Model1=K/H + DUI + Speed+ Fixed + Head-on
No MI=Complete cases only
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Multiple Imputation inference involves
three distinct phases:
1. The missing data are filled in m times to generate m complete data sets (using imputation model)
2. The m complete data sets are analyzed by using standard procedures (using analysis model)
3. The results from the m complete data sets are combined for the inference
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
Statistical Assumptions for Multiple Imputation
1. The MI procedure assumes that the data are from a continuous multivariate distribution. It also assumes that the data are from a multivariate normal distribution when the MCMC method is usedAccording to Schafer’s MI FAQ page, MI tends to be quite forgiving of assumption for normal distribution. For example: when working with binary or ordered categorical variables, it is often acceptable to impute under a normality assumption and then round off the continuous imputed values to the nearest category. Variables whose distributions are heavily skewed may be transformed to approximate normality and then transformed back to their original scale after imputation.
2. Proc MI and Proc MIANALYZE assume that the missing data are Missing At Random (MAR)MCAR is unlikely for real world crash datasetsNMAR may be shifted to MAR by using a richer imputation model to help predict missing values. Because crash datasets include many related variables that can help predict each other
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver
July 14July 14thth , 2003 , 2003 www.kiprc.uky.eduwww.kiprc.uky.edu 2929thth TRF 2003, Denver TRF 2003, Denver