ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Multiple imputation and pooling strategies for handling wide-format missing data in latent growth curve modeling.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Latent growth curve modeling (LGCM), commonly employed in psychological sciences, often encounters the challenge of missing data, which introduce difficulties into the modeling process. While the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) is the dominant missing data handling technique in practice, an alternative class of techniques, multiple imputation (MI), may be preferable in certain scenarios. With the recent increasing attention shine lights on multilevel MI, we conducted a simulation study examining both standard wide-format (MI-wEMB and MI-wFCS) and multilevel long-format MI methods (MI-llMLM and MI-lqMLM) in comparison with FIML under various missing data conditions and model specifications. Our results indicate that while FIML generally produced unbiased estimates and accurate confidence intervals (CIs), most MI methods demonstrated comparable performance across most conditions. However, the proportion of missing data played a notable role, affecting the performance of the methods to varying extents. We also examined the variation in pooling strategies for the likelihood ratio test (LRT) statistic. The results showed that pooling strategies did not exhibit significant differences in performance, but long-format MI methods displayed concerningly conservative Type I error rates (near zero), regardless of the pooling strategy used. The study further revealed that when the analysis model was misspecified, FIML still maintained the highest power, followed by MI-wEMB, MI-wFCS, and MI-lqMLM. Sample size and missing data proportion had the most significant impact on power. Our findings provide practical guidance for researchers in selecting appropriate missing data approaches for LGCM.
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.