Multiple Imputation When Variables Exceed Observations: An Overview of Challenges and Solutions
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
Missing data are a prevalent problem in psychological research that can reduce statistical power and bias parameter estimates. These problems can be mostly resolved with multiple imputation, a modern missing data treatment that is increasingly used. Imputation, however, requires the number of variables to be smaller than the number of observations (i.e., non-missing values), and this number is often exceeded due to, e.g., large assessments, high missing data rates, the inclusion of variables predictive of missing values, and the inclusion of non-linear transformations. Even when the ratio of variables to observations meets the minimum requirement, convergence failure can occur in large, complex models. Specialized techniques have been developed to overcome the challenges related to having too many variables in an imputation model, but they are still relatively unknown by researchers in psychology. Accordingly, this paper presents an overview of four imputation techniques that can be used to reduce the number of predictors in an imputation model: item aggregation with scales and parcels, passive imputation, principal component analysis (PcAux) and two-fold fully conditional specification. The purpose, advantages, limitations, and applications of each method are discussed, along with recommendations and illustrative examples, with the aims of (1) understanding different imputation methods and (2) identifying methods that could be useful for one’s imputation problem.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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