A Monte Carlo simulation was performed to compare methods for handling missing data in growth mixture models. The methods considered in the current study were (a) a fully Bayesian approach using a Gibbs sampler, (b) full information maximum likelihood using the expectation–maximization algorithm, (c) multiple imputation, (d) a two-stage multiple imputation method, and (e) listwise deletion. Of the five methods, it was found that the Bayesian approach and two-stage multiple imputation methods generally produce less biased parameter estimates compared to maximum likelihood or single imputation methods, although key differences were observed. Similarities and disparities among methods are highlighted and general recommendations articulated.
AsparouhovT.MuthénB. O. (2010). Bayesian analysis using Mplus: Technical implementation. Manuscript submitted for publication.
2.
BauerD. J. (2007). Observations on the use of growth mixture models in psychological research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 757–786.
3.
BauerD. J.CurranP. J. (2003). Distributional assumptions of growth mixture models: Implications for overextraction of latent trajectory classes. Psychological Methods, 8, 338–363.
4.
BollenK. A.CurranP. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective. Wiley.
5.
BrowneW. J.DraperD. (2006). A comparison of Bayesian and likelihood-based methods for fitting multilevel models. Bayesian Analysis, 1(3), 473–514.
6.
CaiJ.-H.SongX.-Y.HserY.-I. (2010). A Bayesian analysis of mixture structural equation models with non-ignorable missing responses with covariates. Statistics in Medicine, 29, 1861–1874.
7.
CassidayK.ChoY.HarringJ. R. (2021). A comparison of label switching algorithms for finite mixture models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81, 668–697.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum.
10.
CurranP. J.WestS. G.FinchJ. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29.
11.
DempsterA. P.LairdN. M.RubinD. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 39, 1–38.
12.
DepaoliS. (2013). Mixture class recovery in GMM under varying degrees of class separation: Frequentist versus Bayesian estimation. Psychological Methods, 18, 186–219.
13.
DepaoliS. (2014). The impact of inaccurate “informative” priors for growth parameters in Bayesian growth mixture modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 239–252.
14.
EndersC. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. SAGE.
15.
EndersC. K. (2011). Missing not at random models for latent growth curve analyses. Psychological Methods, 16, 1–16.
16.
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2008). The impact of misspecifying class-specific residual variances in growth mixture models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15, 75–95.
17.
GelmanA.CarlinJ. B.SternH. S.RubinD. B. (1995). Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall.
18.
GemanS.GemanD. (1984). Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 6, 721–741.
19.
GrahamJ. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 549–576.
20.
GrahamJ. W.TaylorB. J.CumsilleP. E. (2001). Planned missing-data designs in analysis of change. In CollinsL. MSayerA. G. (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change (pp. 335–353). American Psychological Association.
21.
HancockG. R.HarringJ. R.LawrenceF. R. (2013). Using latent growth modeling to evaluate longitudinal change. In HancockG. R.MuellerR. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 309–341). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
22.
HarelO. (2003). Strategies for data analysis with two types of missing values [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.
23.
HarelO. (2007). Inferences on missing information under multiple imputation and two-stage multiple imputation. Statistical Methodology, 4, 75–89.
24.
HarelO. (2009). The estimation of R2 and adjusted R2 in incomplete data sets using multiple imputation. Journal of Applied Statistics, 36, 1109–1118.
25.
HarelO.ChungH.MigliorettiD. (2013). Latent class regression: Inference and estimation with two-stage multiple imputation: Two-stage MI for LCR. Biometrical Journal, 55(4), 541–553.
26.
HarringJ. R. (2012). Finite mixtures of nonlinear mixed effects models. In HarringJ. R.HancockG. R. (Eds.), Advances in longitudinal methods in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 159–192). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
27.
HarringJ. R.HodisF. (2016). Applications of mixture modeling in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 51, 354–367.
28.
HedekerD.GibbonsR. D. (1997). Application of random-effects pattern-mixture models for missing data in longitudinal studies. Psychological Methods, 2, 64–78.
29.
HensonJ. M.ReiseS. P.KimK. H. (2007). Detecting mixtures from structural model differences using latent variable mixture modeling: A comparison of relative model fit statistics. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 202–226.
30.
HippJ. R.BauerD. J. (2006). Local solutions in the estimation of growth mixture models. Psychological Methods, 11, 36–53.
31.
JungT.WickramaK. A. S. (2007). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 302–317.
32.
KaplanD. (1989). A study of the sampling variability and z-values of parameter estimates from misspecified structural equation models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24(1), 41–57.
33.
KaplanD. (2002). Methodological advances in the analysis of individual growth with relevance to education policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(4), 189–215.
34.
KohliN.HughesJ.WangC.DavisonM. L.ZopluogluC. (2015). Fitting a linear–linear piecewise growth mixture model with unknown knots: A comparison of two common approaches to inference. Psychological Methods, 20, 259–275.
35.
LiM.HarringJ. R.MacreadyG. B. (2014). Investigating the feasibility of using Mplus in the estimation of growth mixture models. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 13, 31–50.
36.
LockE. F.KohliN.BoseM. (2018). Detecting multiple random changepoints in Bayesian piecewise growth mixture models. Psychometrika, 83, 733–750.
37.
LuZ. L.ZhangZ.LubkeG. (2011). Bayesian inference for growth mixture models with latent class dependent missing data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 567–597.
38.
LubkeG.NealeM. C. (2006). Distinguishing between latent classes and continuous factors: Resolution by maximum likelihood?Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(4), 499–532.
39.
McArdleJ. J. (1986). Latent variable growth within behavior genetic models. Behavior Genetics, 16, 163–200.
40.
McGinnissJ.HarelO. (2016). Multiple imputation in three or more stages. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 176, 33–51.
41.
McLachlanG.KrishnanT. (2007). The EM algorithm and extensions (Vol. 382). John Wiley & Sons.
McNeishD. M. (2016). Using data-dependent priors to mitigate small sample bias in latent growth models: A discussion and illustration using Mplus. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 41(1), 27–56.
44.
McNeishD. M.HarringJ. R. (2017). The effect of model misspecification on growth mixture model class enumeration. Journal of Classification, 34, 223–248.
45.
McNeishD. M.HarringJ. R. (2020). Covariance pattern mixture models: Eliminating random effects to improve convergence and performance. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 947–979.
46.
McNeishD. M.MattaT. (2018). Differentiating between mixed-effects and latent-curve approaches to growth modeling. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1398–1414.
47.
MehtaP. D.WestS. G. (2000). Putting the individual back into individual growth curves. Psychological Methods, 5, 23–43.
Musu-GilletteL. E.WigfieldA.HarringJ. R.EcclesJ. S. (2015). Trajectories of change in students’ self-concepts of ability and values in math and college major choice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 21, 343–370.
50.
MuthénB. O. (2001). Latent variable mixture modeling. In MarcoulidesG. A.SchumackerR. E. (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 1–33). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51.
MuthénB. O.CurranP. J. (1997). General longitudinal modeling of individual differences in experimental designs: A latent variable framework for analysis and power estimation. Psychological Methods, 2, 371–402.
52.
MuthénB. O.MuthénL. K.AsparouhovT. (2010). Bayesian analysis using Mplus. www.statmodel.com.
53.
MuthénB. O.SheddenK. (1999). Finite mixture modeling with mixture outcomes using the EM algorithm. Biometrics, 55, 463–469.
54.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). MuthénMuthén.
55.
NaginD. S. (1999). Analyzing developmental trajectories: A semiparametric, group-based approach. Psychological Methods, 4, 139–157.
56.
NylundK. L.AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 535–569.
57.
PeughJ. L.FanX. (2012). How well does growth mixture modeling identify heterogeneous growth trajectories? A simulation study examining GMM’s performance characteristics. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19, 204–226.
R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing(Tech. Rep.). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org
60.
RhemtullaM.HancockG. R. (2016). Planned missing data designs in educational psychology research. Educational Psychologist, 51, 305–316.
61.
RubinD. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63, 581–592.
62.
RubinD. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Wiley.
63.
RubinD. B. (2003). Nested multiple imputation of NMES via partially incompatible MCMC. Statistica Neerlandica, 57, 3–18.
64.
SchaferJ. L.GrahamJ. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177.
65.
ShenZ. (2000). Nested multiple imputation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Harvard University, Department of Statistics.
66.
SongX.-Y.LeeS.-Y. (2002). Analysis of structural equation models with ignorable missing continuous and polytomous data. Psychometrika, 67, 261–288.
67.
SterbaS. K. (2014). Fitting nonlinear latent growth curve models with individually varying time points. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 630–647.
68.
SterbaS. K. (2016). Cautions on the use of multiple imputation when selecting between latent categorical versus continuous models for psychological constructs. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 45, 167–175.
69.
TofighiD.EndersC. K. (2007). Identifying the correct number of classes in growth mixture models. In HancockG. R. (Ed.), Advances in latent variable mixture models (pp. 317–341). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
70.
TuellerS. J.DrotarS.LubkeG. H. (2011). Addressing the problem of switched class labels in latent variable mixture model simulation studies. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(1), 110–131.
71.
TuellerS. J.LubkeG. H. (2010). Evaluation of structural equation mixture models: Parameter estimates and correct class assignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17(2), 165–192.
72.
van BuurenS.BrandJ. P.Groothuis-OudshoornC. G.RubinD. B. (2006). Fully conditional specification in multivariate imputation. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 76(12), 1049–1064.
73.
WinshipC.MareR. D.WarrenJ. R. (2002). Latent class models for contingency tables with missing data. In HagenaarsJ. A.McCutcheonA. L. (Eds.), Applied Latent Class Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
