Tackling Challenges in Data Pooling: Missing Data Handling in Latent Variable Models with Continuous and Categorical Indicators
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 pooling is a powerful strategy in empirical research. However, combining multiple datasets often results in a large amount of missing data, as variables that are not present in some datasets effectively contain missing values for all participants in those datasets. Furthermore, data pooling typically leads to a mix of continuous and categorical items with nonnormal multivariate distributions. We investigated two popular approaches to handle missing data in this context: (1) applying direct maximum likelihood by treating data as continuous (con-ML), and (2) applying categorical least squares using a polychoric correlation matrix computed from pairwise deletion (cat-LS). These approaches are available for free and relatively straightforward for empirical researchers to implement. Through simulation studies with confirmatory factor analysis and latent mediation analysis, we found cat-LS to be unsuitable for pooled data analysis, whereas con-ML yielded acceptable performance for the estimation of latent path coefficients barring severe nonnormality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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