Handling missing data in self-report measures
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
Self-report measures are extensively used in nursing research. Data derived from such reports can be compromised by the problem of missing data. To help ensure accurate parameter estimates and valid research results, the problem of missing data needs to be appropriately addressed. However, a review of nursing research literature revealed that issues such as the extent and pattern of missingness, and the approach used to handle missing data are seldom reported. The purpose of this article is to provide researchers with a conceptual overview of the issues associated with missing data, procedures used in determining the pattern of missingness, and techniques for handling missing data. The article also highlights the advantages and disadvantages of these techniques, and makes distinctions between data that are missing at the item versus variable levels. Missing data handling techniques addressed in this article include deletion approaches, mean substitution, regression-based imputation, hot-deck imputation, multiple imputation, and maximum likelihood imputation.
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 | 0.032 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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