IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/csdana/v72y2014icp92-104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recursive partitioning for missing data imputation in the presence of interaction effects

Author

Listed:
  • Doove, L.L.
  • Van Buuren, S.
  • Dusseldorp, E.

Abstract

Standard approaches to implement multiple imputation do not automatically incorporate nonlinear relations like interaction effects. This leads to biased parameter estimates when interactions are present in a dataset. With the aim of providing an imputation method which preserves interactions in the data automatically, the use of recursive partitioning as imputation method is examined. Three recursive partitioning techniques are implemented in the multiple imputation by chained equations framework. It is investigated, using simulated data, whether recursive partitioning creates appropriate variability between imputations and unbiased parameter estimates with appropriate confidence intervals. It is concluded that, when interaction effects are present in a dataset, substantial gains are possible by using recursive partitioning for imputation compared to standard applications. In addition, it is shown that the potential of recursive partitioning imputation approaches depends on the relevance of a possible interaction effect, the correlation structure of the data, and the type of possible interaction effect present in the data.

Suggested Citation

  • Doove, L.L. & Van Buuren, S. & Dusseldorp, E., 2014. "Recursive partitioning for missing data imputation in the presence of interaction effects," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 92-104.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:72:y:2014:i:c:p:92-104
    DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2013.10.025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167947313003939
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.csda.2013.10.025?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Iacus, Stefano M. & Porro, Giuseppe, 2007. "Missing data imputation, matching and other applications of random recursive partitioning," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 773-789, October.
    2. van Buuren, Stef & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Karin, 2011. "mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 45(i03).
    3. G. V. Kass, 1980. "An Exploratory Technique for Investigating Large Quantities of Categorical Data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 29(2), pages 119-127, June.
    4. Iacus, Stefano & Porro, Giuseppe, 2008. "Invariant and Metric Free Proximities for Data Matching: An R Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 25(i11).
    5. Nonyane Bareng A. S. & Foulkes Andrea S., 2007. "Multiple Imputation and Random Forests (MIRF) for Unobservable, High-Dimensional Data," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christian Aßmann & Ariane Würbach & Solange Goßmann & Ferdinand Geissler & Anika Bela, 2017. "Nonparametric Multiple Imputation for Questionnaires with Individual Skip Patterns and Constraints: The Case of Income Imputation in the National Educational Panel Study," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(4), pages 864-897, November.
    2. Svetlana Zhuchkova & Aleksei Rotmistrov, 2022. "How to choose an approach to handling missing categorical data: (un)expected findings from a simulated statistical experiment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 1-22, February.
    3. Christian Stetter & Philipp Mennig & Johannes Sauer, 2022. "Using Machine Learning to Identify Heterogeneous Impacts of Agri-Environment Schemes in the EU: A Case Study," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(4), pages 723-759.
    4. Razzak Humera & Heumann Christian, 2019. "Hybrid Multiple Imputation In A Large Scale Complex Survey," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 20(4), pages 33-58, December.
    5. Hapfelmeier, A. & Ulm, K., 2014. "Variable selection by Random Forests using data with missing values," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 129-139.
    6. Christian Aßmann & Marcel Preising, 2020. "Bayesian estimation and model comparison for linear dynamic panel models with missing values," Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics, Australian Statistical Publishing Association Inc., vol. 62(4), pages 536-557, December.
    7. A. R. Linero, 2017. "Bayesian nonparametric analysis of longitudinal studies in the presence of informative missingness," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 104(2), pages 327-341.
    8. Steven D. Silver, 2018. "Multivariate methodology for discriminating market segments in urban commuting," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 63-89, May.
    9. Zachary H. Seeskin, 2016. "Evaluating the Use of Commercial Data to Improve Survey Estimates of Property Taxes," CARRA Working Papers 2016-06, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    10. Hayes, Timothy & McArdle, John J., 2017. "Should we impute or should we weight? Examining the performance of two CART-based techniques for addressing missing data in small sample research with nonnormal variables," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 35-52.
    11. Youngjoo Cho & Debashis Ghosh, 2021. "Quantile-Based Subgroup Identification for Randomized Clinical Trials," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 13(1), pages 90-128, April.
    12. Humera Razzak & Christian Heumann, 2019. "Hybrid Multiple Imputation In A Large Scale Complex Survey," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 20(4), pages 33-58, December.
    13. Vincent Audigier & Ndèye Niang, 2023. "Clustering with missing data: which equivalent for Rubin’s rules?," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 17(3), pages 623-657, September.
    14. Roth, Jonathan & Lim, Benjamin & Jain, Rishee K. & Grueneich, Dian, 2020. "Examining the feasibility of using open data to benchmark building energy usage in cities: A data science and policy perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    15. Xiaofei Ma & Qiuyan Zhong, 2016. "Missing value imputation method for disaster decision-making using K nearest neighbor," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 767-781, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Humera Razzak & Christian Heumann, 2019. "Hybrid Multiple Imputation In A Large Scale Complex Survey," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 20(4), pages 33-58, December.
    2. Razzak Humera & Heumann Christian, 2019. "Hybrid Multiple Imputation In A Large Scale Complex Survey," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 20(4), pages 33-58, December.
    3. Kowarik, Alexander & Templ, Matthias, 2016. "Imputation with the R Package VIM," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 74(i07).
    4. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & Iván Díaz & David Harrison, 2015. "Evaluation of the Effect of a Continuous Treatment: A Machine Learning Approach with an Application to Treatment for Traumatic Brain Injury," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1213-1228, September.
    5. Strobl, Carolin & Boulesteix, Anne-Laure & Augustin, Thomas, 2007. "Unbiased split selection for classification trees based on the Gini Index," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 483-501, September.
    6. Hache, Emmanuel & Leboullenger, Déborah & Mignon, Valérie, 2017. "Beyond average energy consumption in the French residential housing market: A household classification approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 82-95.
    7. Abhilash Bandam & Eedris Busari & Chloi Syranidou & Jochen Linssen & Detlef Stolten, 2022. "Classification of Building Types in Germany: A Data-Driven Modeling Approach," Data, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-23, April.
    8. Dettmann, E. & Becker, C. & Schmeißer, C., 2011. "Distance functions for matching in small samples," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 1942-1960, May.
    9. Boonstra Philip S. & Little Roderick J.A. & West Brady T. & Andridge Rebecca R. & Alvarado-Leiton Fernanda, 2021. "A Simulation Study of Diagnostics for Selection Bias," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 37(3), pages 751-769, September.
    10. Ghosh, Atish R. & Qureshi, Mahvash S. & Kim, Jun Il & Zalduendo, Juan, 2014. "Surges," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 266-285.
      • Mahvash S Qureshi & Mr. Atish R. Ghosh & Mr. Juan Zalduendo & Mr. Jun I Kim, 2012. "Surges," IMF Working Papers 2012/022, International Monetary Fund.
    11. Tomàs Aluja-Banet & Eduard Nafria, 2003. "Stability and scalability in decision trees," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 505-520, September.
    12. Christopher J Greenwood & George J Youssef & Primrose Letcher & Jacqui A Macdonald & Lauryn J Hagg & Ann Sanson & Jenn Mcintosh & Delyse M Hutchinson & John W Toumbourou & Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz &, 2020. "A comparison of penalised regression methods for informing the selection of predictive markers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    13. Liangyuan Hu & Lihua Li, 2022. "Using Tree-Based Machine Learning for Health Studies: Literature Review and Case Series," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-13, December.
    14. Norah Alyabs & Sy Han Chiou, 2022. "The Missing Indicator Approach for Accelerated Failure Time Model with Covariates Subject to Limits of Detection," Stats, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-13, May.
    15. I. Albarrán & P. Alonso-González & J. M. Marin, 2017. "Some criticism to a general model in Solvency II: an explanation from a clustering point of view," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1289-1308, June.
    16. Schwartz, Ira M. & York, Peter & Nowakowski-Sims, Eva & Ramos-Hernandez, Ana, 2017. "Predictive and prescriptive analytics, machine learning and child welfare risk assessment: The Broward County experience," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 309-320.
    17. Drechsler, Jörg & Reiter, Jerome P., 2011. "An empirical evaluation of easily implemented, nonparametric methods for generating synthetic datasets," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(12), pages 3232-3243, December.
    18. Feldkircher, Martin, 2014. "The determinants of vulnerability to the global financial crisis 2008 to 2009: Credit growth and other sources of risk," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 19-49.
    19. Yousaf Muhammad & Dey Sandeep Kumar, 2022. "Best proxy to determine firm performance using financial ratios: A CHAID approach," Review of Economic Perspectives, Sciendo, vol. 22(3), pages 219-239, September.
    20. Eunsil Seok & Akhgar Ghassabian & Yuyan Wang & Mengling Liu, 2024. "Statistical Methods for Modeling Exposure Variables Subject to Limit of Detection," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 16(2), pages 435-458, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:72:y:2014:i:c:p:92-104. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csda .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.