Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26610249›Full record

ArticleMultivariate behavioral research2015

Addressing Item-Level Missing Data: A Comparison of Proration and Full Information Maximum Likelihood Estimation.

Gina L Mazza, Craig K Enders, Linda S Ruehlman

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Multivariate behavioral research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

83 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Helping the Noncompliant Child and Child Behavior Outcomes: An Exploratory Examination of Financial Strain.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2025
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Evaluation of a Bystander-Focused Interpersonal Violence Prevention Program with High School Students.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2019
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Identifying Unique Subgroups of Emotional and Behavioral Presentations in a Large Inpatient and Community Sample of Autistic Youth.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gina L Mazzaa Department of Psychology Arizona State University.
Craig K Endersa Department of Psychology Arizona State University.
Linda S Ruehlmanb Goalistics, LLC.

Funding

Development of the Pain Self-Management ProgramR44NS048743 · NINDS · CONSULTANTS IN BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH · PI RUEHLMAN, LINDA SUE · 2007 to 2010
$964k
NINDS NIH HHS R44 NS048743NINDS NIH HHS R44NS048743
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Often when participants have missing scores on one or more of the items comprising a scale, researchers compute prorated scale scores by averaging the available items. Methodologists have cautioned that proration may make strict assumptions about the mean and covariance structures of the items comprising the scale (Schafer & Graham, 2002 ; Graham, 2009 ; Enders, 2010 ). We investigated proration empirically and found that it resulted in bias even under a missing completely at random (MCAR) mechanism. To encourage researchers to forgo proration, we describe a full information maximum likelihood (FIML) approach to item-level missing data handling that mitigates the loss in power due to missing scale scores and utilizes the available item-level data without altering the substantive analysis. Specifically, we propose treating the scale score as missing whenever one or more of the items are missing and incorporating items as auxiliary variables. Our simulations suggest that item-level missing data handling drastically increases power relative to scale-level missing data handling. These results have important practical implications, especially when recruiting more participants is prohibitively difficult or expensive. Finally, we illustrate the proposed method with data from an online chronic pain management program.

Indexed as

Likelihood FunctionsBehavioral ResearchBiasComputer SimulationHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSample Sizeauxiliary variablesfull information maximum likelihoodmissing dataprorationquestionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26610249
PMCPMC4701045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.