Missing Data pp 253-275 | Cite as

Using Modern Missing Data Methods with Auxiliary Variables to Mitigate the Effects of Attrition on Statistical Power

  • John W. Graham
  • Linda M. Collins
Part of the Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences book series (SSBS)


Missing data in a field experiment may arise from a number of sources. Participants may skip over questions inadvertently or refuse to answer them; they may offer an illegible response; they may fail to complete a questionnaire; or they may be absent from an entire measurement session in a longitudinal study. The last is often called wave nonresponse. Many participants who are unavailable for one or more occasions of measurement are available at later occasions. We define attrition is a special case of wave nonresponse in which a participant drops out of a study after a certain time and is no longer available at any subsequent wave of data collection.


Auxiliary Variable Full Information Maximum Likelihood Artificial Data Main Dependent Variable Intervention Scientist 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allison, P. D. (1987). Estimation of linear models with incomplete data. In C. Clogg (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1987 (pp. 71–103). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Collins, L. M., Schafer, J. L., & Kam, C. M. (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6, 330–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Graham, J. W. (2003). Adding missing-data relevant variables to FIML-based structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 80–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Graham, J. W., & Donaldson, S. I. (1993). Evaluating interventions with differential attrition: The importance of nonresponse mechanisms and use of followup data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Graham, J. W., Olchowski, A. E., & Gilreath, T. D. (2007). How Many Imputations are Really Needed? Some Practical Clarifications of Multiple Imputation Theory. Prevention Science, 8, 206–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Graham, J. W., Taylor, B. J., & Cumsille, P. E. (2001). Planned missing data designs in analysis of change. In L. Collins & A. Sayer (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change, (pp. 335–353). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Graham, J. W., Taylor, B. J., Olchowski, A. E., & Cumsille, P. E. (2006). Planned missing data designs in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 11, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hansen, W. B., & Graham, J. W. (1991). Preventing alcohol, marijuana, and cigarette use among adolescents: Peer pressure resistance training versus establishing conservative norms. Preventive Medicine, 20, 414–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 User’s Reference Guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Murray, D. M. (1998). Design and analysis of group-randomized trials. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Muthén, B., Kaplan, D., & Hollis, M. (1987). On structural equation modeling with data that are not missing completely at random. Psychometrika, 52, 431–462.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus User’s Guide. (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Author.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • John W. Graham
    • 1
  • Linda M. Collins
  1. 1.Department of Biobehavioral HealthThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations