Papers › Pooling multiple imputations when the sample happens to be the population
Pooling multiple imputations when the sample happens to be the population
Gerko Vink, Stef van Buuren
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.
Current pooling rules for multiply imputed data assume infinite populations. In some situations this assumption is not feasible as every unit in the population has been observed, potentially leading to over-covered population estimates. We simplify the existing pooling rules for situations where the sampling variance is not of interest. We compare these rules to the conventional pooling rules and demonstrate their use in a situation where there is no sampling variance. Using the standard pooling rules in situations where sampling variance should not be considered, leads to overestimation of the variance of the estimates of interest, especially when the amount of missingness is not very large. As a result, populations estimates are over-covered, which may lead to a loss of statistical power. We conclude that the theory of multiple imputation can be extended to the situation where the sample happens to be the population. The simplified pooling rules can be easily implemented to obtain valid inference in cases where we have observed essentially all units and in simulation studies addressing the missingness mechanism only.
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