ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Distorted correlations among censored data: causes, effects, and correction.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Modeling truncated and censored data with the diffusion model in Stan.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data censoring occurs when researchers do not know precise values of data points (e.g., age is 55+ or concentration ≤ .001). Censoring is frequent within psychology but typically unrecognized outside of longitudinal studies. We describe five circumstances when censoring may occur, demonstrate censoring distorts correlations, and discuss how censoring can create spurious factors. Next, we explain how to use R package lava to calculate maximum likelihood estimates (Holst and Budtz-Jørgensen Computational Statistics, 28(4), 1385-1452, 2013) of correlations between uncensored variables based upon censored variables. Previous research demonstrated these estimates were more accurate than Muthén's (1984) estimate for one particular model, but no research has systematically examined their accuracy. We therefore conducted a simulation study exploring the effects of the correlation, sample size, and censoring on point and interval estimates of correlations. Based upon 80 cells in which low values of normally distributed variables were censored, we recommend the constrained regression model with Wald confidence intervals. These methods were precise and unbiased unless both variables had 70% censoring and the correlation was large and negative (e.g., -.9), in which case estimates were closer to -1 than they should be. Opposite results would occur if low values of one variable and high values of the other were censored: Estimates would be precise and unbiased unless censoring was extreme and correlations were large and positive. To estimate large correlations accurately, we recommend researchers reduce censoring by using longer longitudinal studies, using scales with more response options, and matching measures to populations to reduce floor and ceiling effects.
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.