Papers › A Comparison of Full Information Maximum Likelihood and Machine Learning Missing Data...
A Comparison of Full Information Maximum Likelihood and Machine Learning Missing Data Analytical Methods in Growth Curve Modeling
Dandan Tang, Xin Tong
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Missing data are inevitable in longitudinal studies. Traditional methods, such as the full information maximum likelihood (FIML), are commonly used to handle ignorable missing data. However, they may lead to biased model estimation due to missing not at random data that often appear in longitudinal studies. Recently, machine learning methods, such as random forests (RF) and K-nearest neighbors (KNN) imputation methods, have been proposed to cope with missing values. Although machine learning imputation methods have been gaining popularity, few studies have investigated the tenability and utility of these methods in longitudinal research. Through Monte Carlo simulations, this study evaluates and compares the performance of traditional and machine learning approaches (FIML, RF, and KNN) in growth curve modeling. The effects of sample size, the rate of missingness, and the missing data mechanism on model estimation are investigated. Results indicate that FIML is a better choice than the two machine learning imputation methods in terms of model estimation accuracy and efficiency.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections