Multiple imputation has become a popular approach for handling missing data (see www.missingdata.org.uk). Suppose that we have an outcome (dependent variable in our model of interest) Y, and a covariate X. Suppose further that X contains some missing values, and that we are happy to assume that these satisfy the missing at random assumption. Then we might consider using multiple imputation to impute the missing values in X. A natural question that then follows is whether, in the imputation model for X, the variable Y should be included as a covariate? Particularly when Y is a variable measured later in time than X, our intuition may lead us to think that it is inappropriate to use the future information contain in Y when imputing in X. This however, is not the case.
Jonathan Bartlett
Conditional randomization, standardization, and inverse probability weighting
In a previous post, I began following the developments in Miguel Hernán and James Robins’ soon to be published book, Causal Inference. There I gave an overview of the first topics they cover, namely potential outcomes, causal effects, and randomization. In this post I’ll continue, with some personal notes on the remaining parts of Chapter 2 of their book, on conditional randomization, standardization, and inverse probability weighting.
Bayesian inference: are parameters fixed or random?
Yesterday I had an interesting discussion with a friend about how parameters are thought of in Bayesian inference. Coming from a predominantly frequentist statistical education, I had somewhere along the line picked up the notion that for Bayesians, like frequentists, the model parameters (their true values) are unknown but fixed quantities. The prior distribution then represents the prior belief about the location of this fixed value, before the data are seen. Thus the prior distribution represents our uncertainty about the location of the unknown, but fixed, parameter value.