Tutorial: Assessing the impact of nonignorable missingness on regression analysis using Index of Local Sensitivity to Nonignorability.
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
Data sets with missing observations are common in psychology research. One typically analyzes such data by applying statistical methods that rely on the assumption that the missing observations are missing at random (MAR). This assumption greatly simplifies analysis but is unverifiable from the data at hand, and assuming it incorrectly may lead to bias. Thus we often wish to conduct sensitivity analyses to judge whether conclusions are robust to departures from MAR-that is, whether key findings would hold up even if MAR does not in fact hold. This article describes a class of sensitivity analyses derived from a measure of robustness called the Index of Local Sensitivity to Nonignorability (ISNI). ISNI is straightforward to compute and avoids the estimation of complicated non-MAR missing-data models. The accompanying R package isni implements the method for a range of commonly used regression models; the syntax is simple and similar to that for the regular analysis that assumes MAR. We illustrate the application of the method and software to address the credibility of MAR analyses in a series of analyses of real-world data sets from psychology research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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