↓ Skip to main content

Sensitivity analysis in multiple imputation in effectiveness studies of psychotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sensitivity analysis in multiple imputation in effectiveness studies of psychotherapy
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01042
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aureliano Crameri, Agnes von Wyl, Margit Koemeda, Peter Schulthess, Volker Tschuschke

Abstract

The importance of preventing and treating incomplete data in effectiveness studies is nowadays emphasized. However, most of the publications focus on randomized clinical trials (RCT). One flexible technique for statistical inference with missing data is multiple imputation (MI). Since methods such as MI rely on the assumption of missing data being at random (MAR), a sensitivity analysis for testing the robustness against departures from this assumption is required. In this paper we present a sensitivity analysis technique based on posterior predictive checking, which takes into consideration the concept of clinical significance used in the evaluation of intra-individual changes. We demonstrate the possibilities this technique can offer with the example of irregular longitudinal data collected with the Outcome Questionnaire-45 (OQ-45) and the Helping Alliance Questionnaire (HAQ) in a sample of 260 outpatients. The sensitivity analysis can be used to (1) quantify the degree of bias introduced by missing not at random data (MNAR) in a worst reasonable case scenario, (2) compare the performance of different analysis methods for dealing with missing data, or (3) detect the influence of possible violations to the model assumptions (e.g., lack of normality). Moreover, our analysis showed that ratings from the patient's and therapist's version of the HAQ could significantly improve the predictive value of the routine outcome monitoring based on the OQ-45. Since analysis dropouts always occur, repeated measurements with the OQ-45 and the HAQ analyzed with MI are useful to improve the accuracy of outcome estimates in quality assurance assessments and non-randomized effectiveness studies in the field of outpatient psychotherapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 11 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,284,384
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,082
of 29,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,663
of 262,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#547
of 566 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,762 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 262,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 566 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.