| dc.contributor | 統計系 | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 廖培珊;江振東;林定香;李隆安;翁宏明;左宗光 | zh_TW |
| dc.date (日期) | 2011-09 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 20-Nov-2014 18:12:49 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 20-Nov-2014 18:12:49 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 20-Nov-2014 18:12:49 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/71606 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | It is a common practice to treat refusals as a missing value and exclude them from data analysis. To avoid biased results obtained from complete cases, imputation and reclassification of refusals into other response categories are frequently used. The appropriateness and effectiveness of different methods, however, remain unclear. This study attempts to compare results among different imputation methods using refusals in a Guttman-type scale as an example. The results indicate that formula for estimating accuracy of single imputation can be derived from the observed frequency of the response patterns that correspond to Guttman-scale types. In addition, refusal rates did not have much impact on the accuracy of simple imputation due to the fixed refusal patterns simulated from the gold standard. On the other hand, the nearest-neighbor method achieves the highest accuracy among the imputation methods examined. Discussions on the imputation results and imputation for further research are provided. | en_US |
| dc.format.extent | 3392724 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 台灣社會學刊,47,143-178 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 簡易插補 ; 多重插補 ; 最鄰近插補 ; 葛特曼量表 ; 拒答 ; Simple imputation ; multiple imputations ; nearest neighbor imputation ; Guttman scale ; refusal | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 處理葛特曼量表之拒答：簡易、多重與最鄰近插補法之比較 | zh_TW |
| dc.title.alternative (其他題名) | Treatments of Guttman-type Scale Refusals: Comparisons among Simple, Multiple and Nearest Neighbor Imputation Methods | en_US |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | en |
