↓ Skip to main content

Principled Missing Data Treatments

Overview of attention for article published in Prevention Science, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
204 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
Title
Principled Missing Data Treatments
Published in
Prevention Science, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11121-016-0644-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kyle M. Lang, Todd D. Little

Abstract

We review a number of issues regarding missing data treatments for intervention and prevention researchers. Many of the common missing data practices in prevention research are still, unfortunately, ill-advised (e.g., use of listwise and pairwise deletion, insufficient use of auxiliary variables). Our goal is to promote better practice in the handling of missing data. We review the current state of missing data methodology and recent missing data reporting in prevention research. We describe antiquated, ad hoc missing data treatments and discuss their limitations. We discuss two modern, principled missing data treatments: multiple imputation and full information maximum likelihood, and we offer practical tips on how to best employ these methods in prevention research. The principled missing data treatments that we discuss are couched in terms of how they improve causal and statistical inference in the prevention sciences. Our recommendations are firmly grounded in missing data theory and well-validated statistical principles for handling the missing data issues that are ubiquitous in biosocial and prevention research. We augment our broad survey of missing data analysis with references to more exhaustive resources.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 188 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 17%
Student > Master 24 13%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Professor 13 7%
Other 39 21%
Unknown 45 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 17%
Social Sciences 18 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 9%
Computer Science 13 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 4%
Other 44 23%
Unknown 57 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 April 2022.
All research outputs
#7,221,031
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#467
of 1,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,458
of 315,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#9
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,093 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.