TY - JOUR
T1 - Model specification for nonlinearity and heterogeneity of regression in randomized pretest posttest studies
T2 - Practical solutions for missing data.
AU - Anderson, Samantha F.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American Psychological Association
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - The randomized pretest posttest design is common in psychology, as is the corresponding missing data concern. Although missing data handling has seen advances over the past several decades, effective and practical solutions for handling missing data in randomized pretest posttest designs are lacking, particularly when assumptions of commonly used statistical models are violated. Although analysis of covariance can capture the average treatment effect with complete data, even when assumptions are tenuous, this becomes more difficult with missing data. This investigation fills this gap in the literature by comparing a variety of analysis models for estimating the average treatment effect under violations of linearity and homogeneity of regression slopes, when data are missing by several plausible, but understudied, missing at random patterns for randomized pretest posttest studies. Two missing data handling techniques, listwise deletion and multiple imputation, were considered. Listwise deletion provided maximum likelihood estimates (unbiased and appropriately precise) of the average treatment effect as long as the analysis model was appropriately specified to handle the violated assumption and the pretest mean was estimated using all cases. Although multiple imputation was effective as long as the imputation model was correct, the results highlight to the importance of model specification in the context of missing data. Importantly, the specific pattern of missing at random data had implications for results, emphasizing the need to consider the particular pattern of missingness beyond the general appropriateness of the missing at random assumption.
AB - The randomized pretest posttest design is common in psychology, as is the corresponding missing data concern. Although missing data handling has seen advances over the past several decades, effective and practical solutions for handling missing data in randomized pretest posttest designs are lacking, particularly when assumptions of commonly used statistical models are violated. Although analysis of covariance can capture the average treatment effect with complete data, even when assumptions are tenuous, this becomes more difficult with missing data. This investigation fills this gap in the literature by comparing a variety of analysis models for estimating the average treatment effect under violations of linearity and homogeneity of regression slopes, when data are missing by several plausible, but understudied, missing at random patterns for randomized pretest posttest studies. Two missing data handling techniques, listwise deletion and multiple imputation, were considered. Listwise deletion provided maximum likelihood estimates (unbiased and appropriately precise) of the average treatment effect as long as the analysis model was appropriately specified to handle the violated assumption and the pretest mean was estimated using all cases. Although multiple imputation was effective as long as the imputation model was correct, the results highlight to the importance of model specification in the context of missing data. Importantly, the specific pattern of missing at random data had implications for results, emphasizing the need to consider the particular pattern of missingness beyond the general appropriateness of the missing at random assumption.
KW - ANCOVA
KW - heterogeneity of regression
KW - linearity
KW - missing data
KW - randomized design
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85103481953&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85103481953&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/met0000364
DO - 10.1037/met0000364
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85103481953
SN - 1082-989X
JO - Psychological Methods
JF - Psychological Methods
ER -