Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41929795›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Multiple imputation and pooling strategies for handling wide-format missing data in latent growth curve modeling.

Fan Jia, Yueqi Yan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Fan JiaPsychological Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA, United States.
Yueqi YanPsychological Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

latent growth curve modelinglong formatmissing datamultilevel imputationpoolingwide format

Identifiers

PMID41929795
PMCPMC13039100

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.