Multiple imputation for missing continuous and dichotomous data: The effects of patterns of missingness and variable correlations on type I error with small samples

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of predictor variable correlations and patterns of missingness with dichotomous and/or continuous data in small samples when missing data is multiply imputed. Missing data of predictor variables is multiply imputed under three different multivariate models: the multivariate normal model for continuous data, the multinomial model for dichotomous data and the general location model for mixed dichotomous and continuous data. Subsequent to the multiple imputation process, Type I error rates of the regression coefficients obtained with logistic regression analysis are estimated under various conditions of correlation structure, sample size, type of data and patterns of missing data. The distributional properties of average mean, variance and correlations among the predictor variables are assessed after the multiple imputation process. ^ For continuous predictor data under the multivariate normal model, Type I error rates are generally within the nominal values with samples of size n = 100. Smaller samples of size n = 50 resulted in more conservative estimates (i.e., lower than the nominal value). Correlation and variance estimates of the original data are retained after multiple imputation with less than 50% missing continuous predictor data. For dichotomous predictor data under the multinomial model, Type I error rates are generally conservative, which in part is due to the sparseness of the data. The correlation structure for the predictor variables is not well retained on multiply-imputed data from small samples with more than 50% missing data with this model. For mixed continuous and dichotomous predictor data, the results are similar to those found under the multivariate normal model for continuous data and under the multinomial model for dichotomous data. With all data types, a fully-observed variable included with variables subject to missingness in the multiple imputation process and subsequent statistical analysis provided liberal (larger than nominal values) Type I error rates under a specific pattern of missing data. It is suggested that future studies focus on the effects of multiple imputation in multivariate settings with more realistic data characteristics and a variety of multivariate analyses, assessing both Type I error and power. ^

Evaluation of the Hosmer -Lemeshow global goodness -of-fit statistic for mixed variable logistic regression models

The performance of the Hosmer-Lemeshow global goodness-of-fit statistic for logistic regression models was explored in a wide variety of conditions not previously fully investigated. Computer simulations, each consisting of 500 regression models, were run to assess the statistic in 23 different situations. The items which varied among the situations included the number of observations used in each regression, the number of covariates, the degree of dependence among the covariates, the combinations of continuous and discrete variables, and the generation of the values of the dependent variable for model fit or lack of fit.^ The study found that the $\rm\ C$g* statistic was adequate in tests of significance for most situations. However, when testing data which deviate from a logistic model, the statistic has low power to detect such deviation. Although grouping of the estimated probabilities into quantiles from 8 to 30 was studied, the deciles of risk approach was generally sufficient. Subdividing the estimated probabilities into more than 10 quantiles when there are many covariates in the model is not necessary, despite theoretical reasons which suggest otherwise. Because it does not follow a X$\sp2$ distribution, the statistic is not recommended for use in models containing only categorical variables with a limited number of covariate patterns.^ The statistic performed adequately when there were at least 10 observations per quantile. Large numbers of observations per quantile did not lead to incorrect conclusions that the model did not fit the data when it actually did. However, the statistic failed to detect lack of fit when it existed and should be supplemented with further tests for the influence of individual observations. Careful examination of the parameter estimates is also essential since the statistic did not perform as desired when there was moderate to severe collinearity among covariates.^ Two methods studied for handling tied values of the estimated probabilities made only a slight difference in conclusions about model fit. Neither method split observations with identical probabilities into different quantiles. Approaches which create equal size groups by separating ties should be avoided. ^