ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022
The effect of missing data and imputation on the detection of bias in cognitive testing using differential item functioning methods.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Income, diet, and cognitive function: observational analyses and candidate metabolomic pathways identified by Mendelian randomization.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2026Observational
- Language, literacy, and sensory impairments and missing cognitive test scores in the Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Article
- Common Critiques and Recommendations for Studies in Neurology Using Machine Learning Methods.Neurology · 2024Article
- Luxembourg Parkinson's study -comprehensive baseline analysis of Parkinson's disease and atypical parkinsonism.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- A robust harmonization approach for cognitive data from multiple aging and dementia cohorts.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundItem response theory (IRT) methods for addressing differential item functioning (DIF) can detect group differences in responses to individual items (e.g., bias). IRT and DIF-detection methods have been used increasingly often to identify bias in cognitive test performance by characteristics (DIF grouping variables) such as hearing impairment, race, and educational attainment. Previous analyses have not considered the effect of missing data on inferences, although levels of missing cognitive data can be substantial in epidemiologic studies.
methodsWe used data from Visit 6 (2016-2017) of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Neurocognitive Study (N = 3,580) to explicate the effect of artificially imposed missing data patterns and imputation on DIF detection.
resultsWhen missing data was imposed among individuals in a specific DIF group but was unrelated to cognitive test performance, there was no systematic error. However, when missing data was related to cognitive test performance and DIF group membership, there was systematic error in DIF detection. Given this missing data pattern, the median DIF detection error associated with 10%, 30%, and 50% missingness was -0.03, -0.08, and -0.14 standard deviation (SD) units without imputation, but this decreased to -0.02, -0.04, and -0.08 SD units with multiple imputation.
conclusionsIncorrect inferences in DIF testing have downstream consequences for the use of cognitive tests in research. It is therefore crucial to consider the effect and reasons behind missing data when evaluating bias in cognitive testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.