The handling of missing binary data in language research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers are frequently confronted with unanswered questions or items on their questionnaires and tests, due to factors such as item difficulty, lack of testing time, or participant distraction. This paper first presents results from a poll confirming previous claims (Rietveld & van Hout, 2006; Schafer & Gra- ham, 2002) that data replacement and deletion methods are common in research. Language researchers declared that when faced with missing answers of the yes/no type (that translate into zero or one in data tables), the three most common solutions they adopt are to exclude the participant’s data from the analyses, to leave the square empty, or to fill in with zero, as for an incorrect answer. This study then examines the impact on Cronbach’s α of five types of data insertion, using simulated and actual data with various numbers of participants and missing percentages. Our analyses indicate that the three most common methods we identified among language researchers are the ones with the greatest impact n Cronbach's α coefficients; in other words, they are the least desirable solutions to the missing data problem. On the basis of our results, we make recommendations for language researchers concerning the best way to deal with missing data. Given that none of the most common simple methods works properly, we suggest that the missing data be replaced either by the item’s mean or by the participants’ overall mean to provide a better, more accurate image of the instrument’s internal consistency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.507 | 0.830 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".