A Note on Listwise Deletion versus Multiple Imputation
The work
| Authors | Thomas B. Pepinsky |
|---|---|
| Editors | |
| Type | article |
| Year | 2018 |
| Citekey | pepinsky2018note |
Where it appeared
| Published in | Political Analysis |
|---|---|
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 480--488 |
Identifiers
| DOI | 10.1017/pan.2018.18 |
|---|---|
| OpenAlex | W2886765421 |
Access
From OpenAlex, which stores abstracts as an index of words and their positions: what is shown is rebuilt from that, and reads fluently whether or not it is what the author wrote.
Abstract
This letter compares the performance of multiple imputation and listwise deletion using a simulation approach. The focus is on data that are “missing not at random” (MNAR), in which case both multiple imputation and listwise deletion are known to be biased. In these simulations, multiple imputation yields results that are frequently more biased, less efficient, and with worse coverage than listwise deletion when data are MNAR. This is the case even with very strong correlations between fully observed variables and variables with missing values, such that the data are very nearly “missing at random.” These results recommend caution when comparing the results from multiple imputation and listwise deletion, when the true data generating process is unknown.
How it got here
| How it got here | agent via openalex |
|---|---|
| Added | 2026-10-28 11:31 UTC |
| Not denied by | a person 2026-10-29 17:12 UTC |
Cite it as
@article{pepinsky2018note,
title = {A Note on Listwise Deletion versus Multiple Imputation},
author = {Thomas B. Pepinsky},
year = {2018},
journal = {Political Analysis},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
volume = {26},
number = {4},
pages = {480--488},
doi = {10.1017/pan.2018.18},
}
This record lives at https://refs.drheap.org/pepinsky2018note/ and will keep doing so.