ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Adapting tree-based multiple imputation methods for multilevel data? A simulation study.
Article in Behavior research methods, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When data have a hierarchical structure, such as students nested within classrooms, ignoring dependencies between observations can compromise the validity of imputation procedures. Standard (tree-based) imputation methods implicitly assume independence between observations, limiting their applicability in multilevel data settings. Although multivariate imputation by chained equations (MICE) is widely used for hierarchical data, it has limitations, including sensitivity to model specification and computational complexity. Alternative tree-based approaches have shown promise for individual-level data, but remain largely unexplored for hierarchical contexts. In this simulation study, we systematically evaluate the performance of novel tree-based methods-chained random forests (missRanger) and extreme gradient boosting (mixgb)-explicitly adapted for multilevel data by incorporating dummy variables indicating cluster membership. We compare these tree-based methods and their adapted versions with traditional MICE imputation in terms of coefficient estimation bias, type I error rates, and statistical power under different cluster sizes (25 and 50), missingness mechanisms (missing completely at random [MCAR], missing at random [MAR]), and missingness rates (10%, 30%, 50%), using both random intercept and random slope data generation models. The results show that MICE provides robust and accurate inference for level 2 variables, especially at low missingness rates (10%). However, the adapted boosting approach (mixgb with cluster dummies) consistently outperforms other methods for level 1 variables at higher missingness rates (30%, 50%). For level 2 variables, while MICE retains better power at moderate missingness (30%), adapted boosting becomes superior at high missingness (50%), regardless of the missingness mechanism or cluster size. These findings highlight the potential of appropriately adapted tree-based imputation methods as effective alternatives to conventional MICE in multilevel data analyses.
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.