Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42816719›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

Including auxiliary cases to address missing data issues through multiple-group models.

Po-Yi Chen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

1 author.

Po-Yi ChenDepartment of Educational Psychology and Counseling, National Taiwan Normal University, No. 162, Sec. 1, Heping E. Rd., Da-an District, Taipei, Taiwan, 106308. poyichen@ntnu.edu.tw.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study explores the use of auxiliary cases to address missing data problems. Extending from the framework of integrative data analysis (IDA), auxiliary cases are defined as cases from other independent samples or existing studies that, while not part of the target group of interest, have sufficient data on the target variables to reduce the impact of missing data on target analyses. These cases can be included in analyses through multiple-group models as an auxiliary group with proper cross-group measurement invariance constraints, while allowing focal structural parameters to be freely estimated. Although past studies based on complete data have found that IDA can stabilize the estimates, most IDA studies mainly consider missing data as a challenge of data integration. In this study, we offer a different perspective by showing that data integration can also serve as a method to limit the impact of missing data. Specifically, our simulations show that the effects of including auxiliary cases on the power and efficiency of the target analyses are more substantial under missing data conditions than under complete data conditions. However, if there are improper cross-group invariance constraints in the analytic model or if inter-dataset heterogeneities are not accounted for in the analyses, the inclusion of auxiliary cases may instead introduce additional bias and reduce power, especially when full information maximum likelihood is used. An empirical example based on two independent experimental datasets is provided. Some issues related to the use of auxiliary cases are also discussed.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansAuxiliary casesIntegrative data analysisMissing dataMultiple-group models

Identifiers

PMID42816719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.