Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31989456›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2020

Optimal planned missing data design for linear latent growth curve models.

Andreas M Brandmaier, Paolo Ghisletta, Timo von Oertzen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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.

Andreas M BrandmaierCenter for Lifespan Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany. brandmaier@mpib-berlin.mpg.de.ORCID 0000-0001-8765-6982
Paolo GhislettaUniversity of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Timo von OertzenCenter for Lifespan Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Longitudinal data collection is a time-consuming and cost-intensive part of developmental research. Wu et al. (2016) discussed planned missing (PM) designs that are similar in efficiency to complete designs but require fewer observations per person. The authors reported optimal PM designs for linear latent growth curve models based on extensive Monte Carlo simulations. They called for further formal investigation of the question as to how much the proposed PM mechanisms influence study design efficiency to arrive at a better understanding of PM designs. Here, we propose an approximate solution to the design problem by comparing the asymptotic effective errors of PM designs. Effective error was previously used to find optimal longitudinal study designs for complete data designs; here, we extend the approach to planned missing designs. We show how effective error is a metric for comparing the efficiency of study designs with both planned and unplanned missing data, and how earlier simulation-based results for PM designs can be explained by an asymptotic solution. Our approach is computationally more efficient than Wu et al.'s approach and leads to a better understanding of how various design factors, such as the number of measurement occasions, their temporal arrangement, attrition rates, and PM design patterns interact and how they conjointly determine design efficiency. We provide R scripts to calculate effective errors in various scenarios of PM designs.

Indexed as

Linear ModelsResearch DesignComputer SimulationHumansLongitudinal StudiesMonte Carlo MethodIndividual differencesLongitudinal dataOptimal designPower analysisRandom effectsRandom slope

Identifiers

PMID31989456
PMCPMC7406489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.