Comparison of Single and MICE Imputation Methods for Missing Values: A Simulation Study

Abstract

High quality data is essential in every field of research for valid research findings. The presence of missing data in a dataset is common and occurs for a variety of reasons such as incomplete responses, equipment malfunction and data entry error. Single and multiple data imputation methods have been developed for data imputation of missing values. This study investigated the performance of single imputation using mean and multiple imputation method using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) via a simulation study. The MCAR which means missing completely at random were generated randomly for ten levels of missing rates (proportion of missing data): 5% to 50% for different sample sizes. Mean Square Error (MSE) was used to evaluate the performance of the imputation methods. Data imputation method depends on data types. Mean imputation is commonly used to impute missing values for continuous variable while MICE method can handle both continuous and categorical variables. The simulation results indicate that group mean imputation (GMI) performed better compared to overall mean imputation (OMI) and MICE with lowest value of MSE for all sample sizes and missing rates. The MSE of OMI, GMI, and MICE increases when missing rate increases. The MICE method has the lowest performance (i.e. highest MSE) when percentage of missing rates is more than 15%. Overall, GMI is more superior compared to OMI and MICE for all missing rates and sample size for MCAR mechanism. An application to a real dataset confirmed the findings of the simulation results. The findings of this study can provide knowledge to researchers and practitioners on which imputation method is more suitable when the data involves missing data.

Ensemble Classifier with Missing Data in Control Chart Patterns

“…The combining of all-class-one network (ACON) with one-class-one network, (OCON) improved the recognition performance from 73.8% with ACON and 83.3% with OCON to with 87.1% (ACON+OCON). The results agreement with previous studies (Pham and Oztemel 1993, Pandya and Macy 1995, Simon 1999.…”