This year I hired a Quickbooks consultant to bring my bookkeeping up from the stone age. (I had been using Excel).
She had asked for some documents with detailed data, and I tried to send her something else as a shortcut. I thought it was detailed enough. It wasn’t, so she just fudged it. The bottom line was all correct, but the data that put it together was all wrong.
I hit the roof.Internally, only—I realized it was my own fault for not giving her the info she needed. She did a fabulous job.
But I could not leave the data fudged, even if it all added up to the right amount, and already reconciled. I had to go in and spend hours fixing it. Truthfully, I was a bit of a compulsive nut about it.
And then I had to ask myself why I was so uptight—if accountants think the details aren’t important, why do I? Statisticians are all about approximations and accountants are exact, right?
As it turns out, not so much.
But I realized I’ve had 20 years of training about the importance of data integrity. Sure, the results might be inexact, the analysis, the estimates, the conclusions. But not the data. The data must be clean.
Sparkling, if possible.
In research, it’s okay if the bottom line is an approximation. Because we’re never really measuring the whole population. And we can’t always measure precisely what we want to measure. But in the long run, it all averages out.
But only if the measurements we do have are as accurate as they possibly can be.
I recently received this question:
I have scale which I want to run Chronbach’s alpha on. One response category for all items is ‘not applicable’. I want to run Chronbach’s alpha requiring that at least 50% of the items must be answered for the scale to be defined. Where this is the case then I want all missing values on that scale replaced by the average of the non-missing items on that scale. Is this reasonable? How would I do this in SPSS?
My Answer:
In RELIABILITY, the SPSS command for running a Cronbach’s alpha, the only options for Missing Data (more…)
In a previous post, Interpreting Interactions in Regression, I said the following:
In our example, once we add the interaction term, our model looks like:
Height = 35 + 4.2*Bacteria + 9*Sun + 3.2*Bacteria*Sun
Adding the interaction term changed the values of B1 and B2. The effect of Bacteria on Height is now 4.2 + 3.2*Sun. For plants in partial sun, Sun = 0, so the effect of Bacteria is 4.2 + 3.2*0 = 4.2. So for two plants in partial sun, a plant with 1000 more bacteria/ml in the soil would be expected to be 4.2 cm taller than a (more…)
There are many types of outcome variables that don’t work in linear models, but look like they should. (I mean, specifically, OLS regression and ANOVA models).
They include discrete counts; truncated or censored variables, where part of the distribution is cut off or measured only up to a certain point; and bounded variables, like proportions and percentages.
This article outlines a particular type of outcome variable: one that measures whether or when an event occurs. They are typically called (more…)
Do you find quizzes irresistible? I do.
Here’s a little quiz about working with missing data:
True or False?
1. Imputation is really just making up data to artificially inflate results. It’s better to just drop cases with missing data than to impute.
2. I can just impute the mean for any missing data. It won’t affect results, and improves power.
3. Multiple Imputation is fine for the predictor variables in a statistical model, but not for the response variable.
4. Multiple Imputation is always the best way to deal with missing data.
5. When imputing, it’s important that the imputations be plausible data points.
6. Missing data isn’t really a problem if I’m just doing simple statistics, like chi-squares and t-tests.
7. The worst thing that missing data does is lower sample size and reduce power.
Answers: (more…)
In my last post, I gave a little quiz about missing data. This post has the answers.
If you want to try it yourself before you see the answers, go here. (It’s a short quiz, but if you’re like me, you find testing yourself irresistible).
True or False?
1. Imputation is really just making up data to artificially inflate results. It’s better to just drop cases with missing data than to impute. (more…)
