On the Asymptotic Relative Efficiency of Planned Missingness Designs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In planned missingness (PM) designs, certain data are set a priori to be missing. PM designs can increase validity and reduce cost; however, little is known about the loss of efficiency that accompanies these designs. The present paper compares PM designs to reduced sample (RN) designs that have the same total number of data points concentrated in fewer participants. In 4 studies, we consider models for both observed and latent variables, designs that do or do not include an "X set" of variables with complete data, and a full range of between- and within-set correlation values. All results are obtained using asymptotic relative efficiency formulas, and thus no data are generated; this novel approach allows us to examine whether PM designs have theoretical advantages over RN designs removing the impact of sampling error. Our primary findings are that (a) in manifest variable regression models, estimates of regression coefficients have much lower relative efficiency in PM designs as compared to RN designs, (b) relative efficiency of factor correlation or latent regression coefficient estimates is maximized when the indicators of each latent variable come from different sets, and (c) the addition of an X set improves efficiency in manifest variable regression models only for the parameters that directly involve the X-set variables, but it substantially improves efficiency of most parameters in latent variable models. We conclude that PM designs can be beneficial when the model of interest is a latent variable model; recommendations are made for how to optimize such a design.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it