Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

A. Descriptive Statistics of the Second Visit Data Variables

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the second visit variables of interest

(VI). This was computed to provide a brief idea on how much a household spends and

earns in a period of time, measure the differences of the statistics between the two

variables and to compare the results with other tests later on. This descriptive statistics

(DS) will be also used in comparing the results of imputation classes (IC), how well the

observations are grouped.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std.Dev Minimum Maximum N

TOTEX2 102389.8 129866.6 8926.000 3203978 4130
TOTIN2 134119.4 216934.9 9067.000 4357180 4130

The average total spending of a household in the National Capital Region (NCR)

is about P102389.8 while the average total earnings amounted to P134119.4, a difference

of more than thirty thousand pesos. Observations from the TOTIN2 are larger and more

spread than the TOTEX2 because of a larger mean and standard deviation respectively.

The dispersion can be also seen by just looking at the minimum at maximum of the two

variables. The range of TOTIN2 which measured more than four million against the

range of TOTEX2 measured one million lower than TOTIN2 can be also a sign of the

extreme variability of the observations.

 B. Formation of Imputation Classes (IC)

Table 2 shows the results of the chi-square test where it was done to determine if

the candidate matching variables (MV) are associated with the VIs. The MV stated in the

methodology must be highly correlated to the variables of interest. The first visit VIs,

TOTIN1 and TOTEX1, were grouped into four categories in order to satisfy the

assumptions in the association tests. The first visit VIs was used in as the variables to be

tested for association rather than second visit VIs since the second visit VI already

contained missing data.

The following candidate MVs that were tested are the provincial area codes

(PROV), recoded education status (CODES1) and recoded total employed household

members (CODEP1). The PROV has four categories, CODES1 has three, and CODEP1

has also four. Originally, CODES1 and CODEP1 have more than what they have now.

Since the original MVs have numerous categories (i.e. In CODES1 and CODEP1, there

were more than 60 and 7 categories respectively.), the MVs were recoded and further

categorized into smaller groups.

The resulting number for each candidate is the χ2 test statistic and below it is p-value.

Table 2

Tests of Association for Matching Variable:

The Chi-Square Test of Independence

CODIN1 CODEX1
χ2 = 151.78 χ2 = 137.83
PROV
(<0.0001) (<0.0001)
χ2 = 613.859 χ2 = 687.342
CODES1
(<0.0001) (<0.0001)
χ2 = 358.436 χ2 = 193.132
CODEP1
(<0.0001) (<0.0001)
 The chi-square test of association for the candidates and the variables of interest

showed that PROV, CODES1 and CODEP1 are associated to CODIN1 and CODEX1. In

fact, the p-values for all the candidates were less than 0.0001 indicating that the

association is very significant. The results of succeeding tests of association will

determine which of the three candidates will be chosen as the MV of the study. The chi-

square test is insufficient since it failed to determine the best MV.

Table 3 shows the other tests of association, namely, the Phi-Coefficient, Cramer’s

V and the contingency test. These tests were done in order to assess the degree of

association of the candidates to CODIN1 and CODEX1.

Table 3

Tests of Association:
Degree of association

Phi-Coefficient Cramer's V Contingency Test

CODIN1 CODEX1 CODIN1 CODEX1 CODIN1 CODEX1
PROV 0.192 0.183 0.111 0.105 0.188 0.18
CODES1 0.386 0.408 0.273 0.288 0.36 0.378
CODEP1 0.295 0.216 0.17 0.125 0.283 0.211

The table above displays the degree of association between the candidates and the

variables of interest. The degree of association for all the tests showed weak association.

In real complex data, the association between variable happens to be smaller or even no

association at all. In all the other tests of association, only CODES1 measured at least a

minimum of twenty percent to be used in dividing the data into imputation classes. The

result above is now sufficient to say that CODES1 is the chosen MV for this data.

To have a detailed description of CODES1 imputation classes, a descriptive

statistics for each imputation class was performed. Table 4 shown below is the descriptive
statistics of each imputation class of the data. The descriptive statistics will tell if the best

MV decreases the variability of the observations. In checking for the variability of each

imputation class, the standard deviation will be used and compared with the value from

the overall standard deviation of the variables of interest.

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics of the data grouped into ICs

Valid
Mean Minimum Maximum Std. Dev N
TOTIN2
IC1 93588.32 9067.000 1340900 75619.52 2635
IC2 186940.9 14490.00 4215480 281852.3 1434
IC3 643191.2 54790.00 4357180 829409.3 61

TOTEX2
IC1 74866.68 9025.000 731937.0 47517.69 2635
IC2 135510.8 13575.00 3203978 151984.3 1434
IC3 413184.0 40505.00 2726603 532577.1 61

The table shown above that in the IC1 for both VIs, the first IC which has the largest

number of observations produced lesser spread than the two ICs. The two ICs, IC2 and

IC3 produced large standard deviations however it is being neutralized by a low value

from IC1 which has the largest proportion of the data. It may be that reason why the

standard deviation and the mean of IC3 are large because majority of the extreme values

were contained on that class.

C. Mean of the simulated data by nonresponse rate for each VI

Table 5 shows the result of the means in both VIs under the varying rates of

nonresponse. This was generated to have a brief description on the effects on

nonresponse rate on the population mean ignoring the missing values. More importantly,
the results below will become input in the comparison of the estimates from the imputed

data for each imputation method (IM).

Table 5

Mean of the retained and deleted observations

Observations retained Observations deleted

No. Mean No. Mean
TOTEX2
10% 3717 102748.610 413 99160.235
20% 3304 102219.791 826 103069.697
30% 2891 100709.947 1239 106309.365

TOTIN2
10% 3717 134821.662 413 127799.121
20% 3304 133624.722 826 136098.155
30% 2891 130685.596 1239 142131.636

The mean rates of the observations set to nonresponse and observations retained

showed contrasting results. When the nonresponse rate gets larger for both sets, the mean

rate of observations set to nonresponse increases. Conversely, the mean rate of

observations set to nonresponse decreases when nonresponse rate increases. It’s a

possibility that large values were set to nonresponse that increased the means of the data

sets containing nonresponse for the varying rates of nonresponse.

Comparing the means for the varying nonresponse rates under each VI, the results

showed that there is little difference between the population mean ignoring the missing

data and the population mean of the actual data. However, similar to the description

above, as the number of missing values increase, the deviation between the means of the

actual and retained data slowly increases.

D. Regression model adequacy

 Table 6 show the different regression models for all VIs and nonresponse rates

(NRRs) that were checked for adequacy. The columns are represented as follows: (a) VI,

(b) the nonresponse rate (NRR), (c) IC, (d) the prediction model, (e) the coefficient of

determination (R2) and (f) the F-statistic and its p-value.

 Table 6

Model Adequacy Results

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

VI NRR IC Model Fitted R2 F-Stat
(p-value)
TOTEX2 10% IC1 y i=2.3740800.789973  LNFVE1i  0.728 6363.59
(<0.0001)
IC2 y i=2.3653850.794573  LNFVE2i  0.782 4574.95
(<0.0001)
IC3 y i=1.2694740.890618 LNFVE3i  0.902 516.90
(<0.0001)
20% IC1 y =2.3743640.789949 LNFVE1  0.734 5786.27
i i
(<0.0001)
IC2 0.787 4268.38
y i=2.3615620.794823  LNFVE2i 
(<0.0001)
IC3 y =1.2320730.889574 LNFVE3  0.901 434.66
i i
(<0.0001)
30% IC1 y =2.3731630.789773  LNFVE1  0.705 4382.10
i i
(<0.0001)
IC2 y i=2.3561660.795439  LNFVE2i  0.791 3841.35
(<0.0001)
IC3 y i=1.7227360.853004  LNFVE3i 0.888 333.71
(<0.0001)
TOTIN2 10% IC1 y i=2.2366560.810047  LNFVI1i  0.706 5703.61
(<0.0001)
IC2 y i=1.9707270.840702 LNFVI2i  0.805 5261.48
(<0.0001)
IC3 y i=2.2868820.805997  LNFVI1i  0.920 642.98
(<0.0001)
20% IC1 y i=1.8732060.849244  LNFVI2i  0.703 4954.23
(<0.0001)
IC2 y i=0.9386500.938196  LNFVI3i  0.821 5275.06
(<0.0001)
IC3 y i=0.9638180.936158 LNFVI3i  0.915 517.04
(<0.0001)
30% IC1 y =2.0668150.824476  LNFVI1  0.713 4557.33
i i
(<0.0001)
IC2 y =1.7851090.856330 LNFVI2  0.826 4793.39
i i
(<0.0001)
IC3 y i=0.8771920.939765 LNFVI3i  0.932 574.82
(<0.0001)
 The results showed that all of the models are fitted adequately to their respective

data sets. The highest r2 in table 6 measured 93.2%, the coefficient of variation for the

third imputation class of the TOTEX2 variable under the highest NRR while the lowest is

70.3%, the coefficient of variation for the first imputation class of the TOTIN2 variable

under 20% NRR. It is interesting to note that for all NRRs and VIs, the third IC generated

the highest r2 among the ICs. The lowest r2 from all the models under the third imputation

class is 88.8% which is from the 30% NRR of the TOTEX2 variable. Contrary to the r 2 of

the third IC, the first IC generated the lowest r2 for all NRRs and VIs. (For the other

figures and graphs of the fitted models, see the appendix.)

E. Evaluation of the different imputation methods

In the evaluation of the different imputation methods (IMs), each IM will discuss

its results independently. For each IM, the discussion of results will go as follows: (1)

nonresponse bias and variances of the estimates of the population of the imputed data, (2)

distribution of the imputed data using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness of Fit Test,

and (3) other measures of variability using the mean deviation (MD), mean absolute

deviation (MAD) and root mean square deviation (RMSD).

The table of results will contain the following columns: (a) VI, (b) NRR, (c) the

bias of the population mean of the imputed data, Bias( y ' ), (d) the variance of the

population mean of the imputed data, Var( y ' ), (e) Estimated percentage of correct

distribution of the imputed data set to the actual data set (PCD), (f) Mean Deviation

(MD), (g) Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) and (h) Root Mean Square Deviation

(RMSD).
Overall Mean Imputation

Table 7 shows the results of the different criteria in evaluating the newly created

data with imputations using the overall mean imputation (OMI) method.

Table 7

Criteria Results for the OMI method

(c) (d)
(a) (b) BIAS Var (f) (g) (h)
VI NRR ( y ' ) ( y ' ) (e) PCD MD MAD RMSD

TOTEX2 10% 640.66 0.00 0.00% -6406.60 56929.61 108547.82

20% 499.43 0.00 0.00% -2497.14 59555.36 119193.32
30% -222.76 0.00 0.00% 20310.91 90396.26 271775.35

TOTIN2 10% -597.84 0.00 0.00% 5978.39 77502.27 167206.24

20% -2855.49 0.00 0.00% 14277.43 87469.87 244758.00
30% -6093.27 0.00 0.00% 742.53 62388.11 151740.94

(1) Nonresponse bias and variance

In (c) of table 7, results show that for nonresponse bias, as the nonresponse rate

increases for both VI, the value of the bias decreases. The decrease in value of the bias in

TOTIN2 was faster and more dramatic than TOTEX2. It seemed that in TOTIN2, the

extents of the decrease in value are almost five hundred percent under twenty percent

NRR and almost tripled the rate of decrease under twenty percent NRR for the highest

NRR. In contrast of the results in TOTIN2, the extent of decrease of the bias for TOTEX2

is much slower. The biases of the twenty and thirty percent for TOTIN2 is more than 6

times larger than TOTEX2.

The variance for all NRR and VI are all zero because the population mean of the

imputed data set is constant. The data was not simulated one thousand times unlike for
hot deck imputation (HDI3) and stochastic regression imputation (SRI3). Further, the

OMI method did not create a sampling distribution for the mean of the created data due to

a single simulation.

(2) Distribution of the imputed data

Results in column (e) of table 7 showed that in all nonresponse rates and

variables, the OMI method failed to maintain the distribution of the actual data. This was

expected primarily because in each missing observation from all data sets with missing

data, the missing observations were replaced by a single value which is the overall mean

of the first visit of the VI.

Results from other studies stated that the OMI is one of the worst among all

imputation methods. It is remarked that even if it is a simple process, inaccurate results

are obviously made. Cases that vary significantly to the imputed values were the primary

cause for inaccuracy. Also, the use of only a single value to be imputed for the missing

data distorts the distribution of the data. The distribution of the data becomes too peaked

which makes this method unsuitable for many post-analysis. (Cheng, 1999)

(3) Other measures of variability

The three criteria in table 7 under the columns (f), (g) and (h) show the other

measures of variability of the imputed data. In all the criteria, the values for TOTEX2 are

increasing as the nonresponse rate increases. However, this is not the case for TOTIN2.

Suprisingly, the data which have twenty percent nonresponse observation that were

imputed have the highest values for the three criteria.

 It is worth noting to see that the mean deviation that focuses on each observation

showed contrast with the results of the bias which focused on the population mean of the

imputed data. The mean deviation for all nonresponse rates under the TOTEX2 variable

were overestimating the actual data however in the results of bias on the other hand, the

population mean of the imputed data underestimates the actual data. Likewise in the other

variable, when the result in mean deviation is an underestimate, the result from the bias is

just the opposite which is an overestimation.

Hot Deck Imputation

Table 8 shows the results of the different criteria in evaluating imputed data with

imputations using the hot deck imputation (HDI3) method with three imputation classes.

Table 8
Criteria Results for the HDI3 Method

(b) (c) (d)

(a) NR BIAS Var (e) (f) (g) (h)
VI R ( y ' ) ( y ' ) PCD MD MAD RMSD

TOTEX2 10% 491.91 408.44 100.00% 4919.40 78071.61 79251.22

20% 179.42 913.04 96.90% 897.18 78292.63 67149.16
30% -606.37 1344.20 0.00% -2021.19 81395.79 71390.65

TOTIN2 10% -717.52 804.33 100.00% -7175.25 105369.15 242022.99

20% -3095.41 1778.01 100.00% -15477.09 111748.04 297151.50
30% -6508.65 2547.34 1.00% -21695.52 115087.13 313814.92

(1) Nonresponse Bias and Variance

Similar the results in the OMI method, the bias of the population mean of the

imputed data increases for both variables as the NRR increases. As seen in OMI, for the

TOTIN2 variable, the bias of the data which has twenty percent imputations is more than
four times the bias of the data which contained ten percent imputed and almost half the

bias of the data which has thirty percent imputed. The bias in the TOTIN2 variable in this

method is a little worse than the OMI method.

Similar results were seen in OMI for the other variable, TOTEX2 where in the

data which contained thirty percent imputations, the bias becomes negative. The bias

seemed to decrease in value as the NRR increases. The biases for the first and second

NRR under HDI3 performed better than OMI.

The variance of the population mean of the data which have imputations increases

by more than one hundred percent as the nonresponse rate increases. The data which

contained the lowest number of imputations provided the least spread of the population

means and the data which contained the largest number of imputation provided the worst

spread.

(2) Distribution of the imputed data

Results in column (e) shows that in TOTIN2, the imputed data maintained the

distribution of the actual data for the data which contained ten and twenty percent

imputations. On the other variable, only the data which contained ten percent imputation

provided maintained the distribution of the actual data for all the one thousand data set. In

the data which contained twenty percent imputations, only 969 out of the 1000 data set

maintained the distribution of the actual data.

In the data sets which contained the largest number of imputations, both variables

failed to maintain the distribution of the actual. Much worse, none of the simulated data

set for TOTEX2 registered the same distribution as the actual. On the other hand, only a

lone data set maintained the same distribution as the actual. The researchers look into the
possibility that more than one recipient are having the same donor or could be that

majority of the imputations are coming from one particular area in the record.

(3) Other measures of variability

For the three remaining criteria, the values generated were better than the results

in the OMI method. In the MD criterion for both variables, the MD criterion generated an

underestimation of the actual observation. While the OMI method overestimates the

deleted actual values for the TOTIN2 variable, the HDI3 underestimates them. The

underestimation rapidly increases as the nonresponse rate increases. The magnitude of the

MD for TOTIN2 is larger for HDI3 than in OMI for all nonresponse rates.

Similar to the results in MD for TOTIN2, the MAD and RMSD were unusually

large compared to the OMI. In seems that imputation classes for the TOTIN2 variable

were not as effective as compared to the TOTEX2 variable wherein in majority of values

in all the nonresponse rates and criteria showed that HDI3 was better than OMI.

Deterministic Regression Imputation

Table 9 shows the results of the different criteria in evaluating the imputed data

using the deterministic regression imputation method with three imputation classes

(DRI3).
 Table 9

Criteria Results for the DRI3 method

(c) (d)
(a) (b) BIAS Var (e) (f) (g) (h)
VI NRR ( y ' ) ( y ' ) PCD MD MAD RMSD

TOTEX2 10% -720.46 0.00 100.00% -7204.56 23839.82 57726.62

20% -1469.57 0.00 100.00% -7347.86 23231.65 53180.02
30% -2266.38 0.00 100.00% -7554.61 24082.88 59795.67

TOTIN2 10% -1128.45 0.00 100.00% -11284.46 32115.80 77228.48

20% -2211.82 0.00 100.00% -11059.09 35274.03 114957.43
30% -4137.78 0.00 100.00% -13792.60 34537.36 103253.12

(1) Nonresponse bias and variance

Looking at table 9, the bias for all NRR and VI showed negative results which

indicates that the population mean of the imputed data is underestimated. The results in

the nonresponse bias from this method are similar to the results of the previous two

methods that the TOTIN2 is underestimated. However, not like the results in OMI and

HDI3 which the bias increases tremendously as the nonresponse rate increases, the

increase in bias for this method is much slower. The bias of the data which has twenty

percent imputations of the imputed data set is just twice the bias of the data set which has

a lower percentage of imputations. For the TOTEX2 variable, this method produces more

biased estimates for all NRR than the two previous methods.

As in the OMI method, the variance for this method is also zero since the

population mean is constant due to a single simulation of the missing observations.

(2) Distribution of the imputed data

In contradictory to the results of the OMI method under this criterion, the DRI3

maintained its distribution for all the NRRs and VIs. It is even much better than the HDI3

since all of the imputed data sets under all NRRs and VIs preserved the same distribution

as the actual data. It is interesting to note that the regression models that were used in this

study did not follow the same format as the related literature and provided a distinct

result. Earlier studies that made use of categorical auxiliary variables, variables that are

known to be the matching variables in this study, conclude that deterministic regression is

just the same as the mean imputation to generate distorted and peaked distributions.

However, in this study, the independent variable was the first visit VIs and for each

imputation class there is a fitted model which registered better R2 that made the

difference.

(3) Other measures of variability

Similar to the results in the nonresponse bias, the MD for all VI and NRR

underestimates the actual observations. The underestimation for all NRR is almost stable

because the rate of change is very small as compared to the two previous IMs. The MAD

and RMSD show better results than OMI and HDI providing closer values of the imputed

to the actual observations. As seen in OMI and HDI3, the TOTIN2 have larger values for

the MAD and RMSD criteria. Fitting models with high r2 was the key factor that made

this method better than the other two IM previously evaluated.

Stochastic Regression Imputation

Table 10 shows the results of the different criteria in evaluating the imputed data
using the stochastic regression imputation method with three imputation classes (SRI3).

Table 10
Criteria Results for SRI3

(c) (d)
(a) (b) BIAS Var (e) (f) (g) (h)
VI NRR ( y ' ) ( y ' ) PCD MD MAD RMSD

TOTEX2 10% 536.32 48.10 100.00% 5363.47 33683.48 70553.64

20% 1080.12 123.45 98.40% 5400.71 33782.60 72487.39
30% 398.39 154.74 100.00% 1328.06 32449.49 72803.60

TOTIN2 10% 897.11 167.90 100.00% 9043.98 51363.17 106374.39

20% -1815.39 470.10 100.00% -9076.98 57429.24 148278.49
30% 356.50 726.50 100.00% 1188.31 51886.73 131429.61

(1) Nonresponse bias and variance

The only method that produced reasonable estimates is the SRI3 method. The

random residual added to the deterministic predicted observation made the difference.

Clearly, there is no relationship between the nonresponse bias estimates of the population

mean and the nonresponse rate. The biases fluctuate from one nonresponse rate to the

other. This method provided the least bias in the highest nonresponse for both TOTEX2

and TOTIN2. While the other methods reached a four digit bias, the SRI3 generated a

much lesser bias than the other three methods. In fact, there is this huge disparity in the

third nonresponse rate wherein it only produced less than twenty percent of the bias

produced by its deterministic counterpart.

The variances of the SRI3 proved to be much better than its model-free

counterpart which is the HDI3. In all the methods and nonresponse rate, it is clearly seen
that there is a huge disparity between the variances of the SRI3 and HDI3. Variances

from the HDI3 are almost ten times larger compared to SRI3.

(2) Distribution of the imputed data

Results from the SRI3 performed better than its model-free counterpart that is the

HDI3 method which also simulated the data 1000 times. Unlike in hot deck imputation,

stochastic regression imputation maintained the same distribution for all imputed data

sets for the first and third nonresponse rates. It also outperformed the former in the

second nonresponse rate, TOTEX2 variable. One of the reasons why 16 out of the 1000

sets failed to maintain the distribution of the actual data set for the imputed data set which

contained twenty percent or 826 imputations might be the unfeasibility of the predicted

values.

In earlier studies, the stochastic regression imputation performs better than any of

the four methods used here. The random residual was added to the deterministic predicted

value to preserve the distribution of the data. However, even if the original deterministic

imputed values were feasible, the stochastic counterpart need not be. After adding the

residual to the deterministic imputation, unfeasible values could namely result. (Nordholt,

1998)

(3) Other measures of variability

Similar to the results in the nonresponse bias, the MD has no relationship with the

NRR since from one NRR to another, the MD fluctuates. In the same criteria, it

outperformed its regression counterpart but also getting outperformed by the two other

methods. Contradictory to the results and observations in the MD criteria, the SRI3
closely follows second to the DRI3 methods and provides better values than the two other

methods.

In the review of related literature, the stochastic regression performs way better

than the deterministic regression. The researchers look at the same reason from the

previous criteria. It’s likely possible that the predicted values are unrealistic as compared

to the deterministic predicted value.

After comparing the different methods with the criteria proposed in the

methodology, the distribution of the true values (TVs) that were deleted and the imputed

values (IVs) from each of the imputation procedures for all the VIs and nonresponse rates

were computed. Table 11, 12 and 13 shows the frequency distribution of the methods

with their corresponding relative frequencies (RFs) for the first, second and third

nonresponse rates respectively. The RFs for the 1000 simulated data set from HDI3 and

SRI3 were averaged. The first column represents the VIs frequency classes. This was the

same classes that were used in the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness of Fit test in

determining the estimated percentage of similar distributions of the imputed data. The

second column is the relative frequencies of the actual data. The succeeding columns are

the imputation methods.

 Table 11

Distribution of the TVs and IVs from the imputation procedures: 10% NRR

10% Nonresponse Rate

Imputation Procedures
TOTEX2 TV
OMI HDI3* DRI3 SRI3*
10.90 13.90
<37859.5 % 0.00% % 7.70% 9.50%
10.20
37869.5- 9.70% 0.00% % 8.70% 8.70%
47056.5- 9.70% 0.00% 9.70% 11.40% 6.10%
12.30
54922- 11.40% 0.00% 8.90% % 9.50%
63265- 8.70% 0.00% 9.10% 11.10% 11.40%
12.60
73868- 9.70% 0.00% 9.40% % 11.10%
10.90
86103- % 0.00% 9.40% 8.00% 11.10%
100.00
101947- 11.10% % 8.90% 11.40% 8.50%
126254.5 12.20
- 9.00% 0.00% 8.90% 9.00% %
12.10
169964- 8.90% 0.00% 11.60% 7.70% %

Imputation Procedures
TOTIN2 TV
OMI HDI3* DRI3 SRI3*
15.10
<40570 9.70% 0.00% % 6.10% 9.10%
10.20
40570- % 0.00% 11.90% 8.70% 7.90%
10.10 14.50
51564- 9.40% 0.00% % % 8.30%
10.20 10.70 10.00
62006.5- % 0.00% 9.50% % %
12.80 12.40
73900.5- 9.00% 0.00% 9.60% % %
10.90
88127- % 0.00% 9.30% 9.20% 9.00%
100.00 10.50
104801- 11.90% % 9.80% 9.90% %
128000- 11.40% 0.00% 7.80% 11.10% 9.30%
10.70
161669- 7.70% 0.00% 8.00% % 11.20%
12.30
233907- 9.90% 0.00% 8.90% 6.30% %
 * RFs for each class were obtained by taking the average of
the 1000 simulated data set.

Table 12

Distribution of the TVs and IVs from the imputation procedures: 20% NRR

20% Nonresponse Rate

Imputation Procedures
TOTEX2 TV
GM HDI3* DRI3 SRI3*
<37859.5 9.40% 0.00% 14.30% 7.40% 8.20%
37869.5- 9.70% 0.00% 10.40% 9.60% 7.60%
47056.5- 11.60% 0.00% 9.70% 9.00% 8.20%
54922- 10.00% 0.00% 9.00% 11.00% 7.90%
63265- 9.60% 0.00% 9.20% 12.30% 10.30%
73868- 8.40% 0.00% 9.40% 12.50% 11.90%
86103- 9.60% 0.00% 9.30% 9.90% 10.30%
101947- 11.30% 100.00% 8.70% 10.80% 11.80%
126254.5- 9.70% 0.00% 8.70% 8.80% 11.70%
169964- 10.70% 0.00% 11.30% 8.70% 12.10%

Imputation Procedures
TOTIN2 TV
GM HDI3* DRI3 SRI3*
<40570 10.00% 0.00% 15.70% 4.80% 11.80%
40570- 10.30% 0.00% 12.10% 11.90% 12.20%
51564- 11.70% 0.00% 10.10% 10.20% 11.30%
62006.5- 10.20% 0.00% 9.60% 11.70% 9.90%
73900.5- 8.60% 0.00% 9.50% 11.90% 8.50%
88127- 9.40% 0.00% 9.30% 9.60% 10.10%
104801- 9.10% 100.00% 9.70% 11.70% 9.00%
128000- 9.20% 0.00% 7.60% 9.80% 8.30%
161669- 11.30% 0.00% 7.80% 9.70% 8.90%
233907- 10.20% 0.00% 8.70% 8.70% 10.10%
 * RFs for each class were obtained by taking the average of
the 1000 simulated data set.

Table 13

Distribution of the TVs and IVs from the imputation procedures: 30% NRR

30% Nonresponse Rate

Imputation Procedures
TOTEX2 TV
GM HDI3* DRI3 SRI3*
14.30 10.30
<37859.5 9.80% 0.00% % 7.80% %
10.40
37869.5- 8.80% 0.00% % 9.00% 9.60%
47056.5- 9.60% 0.00% 9.70% 9.40% 8.30%
10.80
54922- 9.50% 0.00% 8.90% % 9.30%
12.70 10.10
63265- 11.00% 0.00% 9.20% % %
10.70 10.60
73868- % 0.00% 9.40% 11.50% %
10.70 12.10
86103- % 0.00% 9.40% % 9.80%
100.00 10.10
101947- 9.40% % 8.70% 8.80% %
126254.5
- 11.00% 0.00% 8.70% 9.00% 8.10%
169964- 9.50% 0.00% 11.30% 9.00% 13.70
 %

Imputation Procedures
TOTIN2 TV
GM HDI3* DRI3 SRI3*
15.60
<40570 9.40% 0.00% % 6.50% 8.90%
12.10 10.40
40570- 9.00% 0.00% % % 8.20%
10.10 10.80
51564- 9.90% 0.00% % % 8.80%
10.70 10.10
62006.5- % 0.00% 9.60% 11.50% %
10.20 12.20
73900.5- % 0.00% 9.50% % 11.00%
10.30 10.70 10.20
88127- % 0.00% 9.30% % %
10.30 100.00 10.50 10.40
104801- % % 9.70% % %
10.80
128000- 9.80% 0.00% 7.60% 11.20% %
10.70 10.30
161669- % 0.00% 7.70% 8.20% %
233907- 9.90% 0.00% 8.70% 8.00% 11.30%

* RFs for each class were obtained by taking the average of

the 1000 simulated data set.

For the actual and imputed data with the lowest number of observations set to

missing, it clearly illustrates the distortion of the distribution created by the OMI method.

The OMI method assigns the mean of the first visit VI to all the missing cases, as a result,

all the distribution of the missing values replaced by a single value concentrates at one
frequency class. The three methods which implemented imputation classes, gave a better

outcome than OMI by spreading the distribution of the imputed data.

For the HDI3 method, in all nonresponse rates, most of the imputed observations

clustered in the first frequency class, that is less than 37859.5 for TOTEX2 and 40570 for

TOTIN2. The clustering was also formed for the first and third nonresponse rate in last

frequency class for TOTEX2 and for the all nonresponse rates in second frequency class

for TOTIN2. The percentage of the data in from the lowest class for TOTEX2 and

TOTIN2, for all nonresponse rate ranges from 14-16% compared to the actual percentage

which only ranges from 9-11%.

While there is an over representation of the data, an under representation was

observed from the interval 86103-126254.5 for the 10% and 20% nonresponse imputed

data sets respectively and from the interval 63265-101947 for the 30% nonresponse

imputed data sets. The percentage from the interval indicated for the 10% and 20% under

the actual data totaled about 30% while the imputed data only totaled less than 30%.

For the two regression imputation methods, unlike hot deck and OMI which had

major cluster, produced more spread distribution although there are some areas that are

under represented. The failure to consider a random residual term in deterministic

regression resulted into a severe under representation of the data in particular the first

frequency class. On the other hand, the SRI3 which considered a random residual

provided better results than DRI3. However, there are some areas that the added random

produced significant excess mostly from the last frequency class.

F. Choosing the best imputation

 For this section, the rankings of all the tests are the basis to determine which of

the following IMs will be chosen as the “best” IMs for this particular study and data. The

selection of the best method will be independent for all VIs and NRRs. The ranking are

based on a four-point system wherein the rank value of 4 denotes the worst IM for that

specific criterion and 1 denotes the best IM for that criterion. In case of ties, the average

ranks will be substituted. The IM with the smallest rank total will be declared the “best”

IM for the particular VI and NRR. The ranking of IM will cover the following criteria: (a)

Nonresponse bias, (b) Distribution of correct distributions, and (c) Other measures of

variability. All in all, there are five criteria that each IM will be rank in.

Table 14, 15 and 16 shows the ranking of the different imputation methods for the

10%, 20% and 30% NRR respectively. The table is divided into six columns. The first

column represents the VI, second is the criteria, third up to the sixth column are the

imputation methods.

Table 14

Ranking of the different imputation methods: 10% NRR

10% NONRESPONSE RATE

IMPUTATION METHODS
VI CRITERIA
OMI3 HDI3 DRI3 SRI3
TOTEX2 N.B. 3 1 4 2
 PCD 4 1.3 1.3 1.3
MD 3 1 4 2
MAD 3 4 1 2
RMSD 4 3 1 2
TOTAL 17 10.3 11.3 9.3
Category Rank 4th 2nd 3rd 1st

TOTIN2 N.B. 1 2 4 3
PCD 4 1.3 1.3 1.3
MD 1 2 4 3
MAD 3 4 1 2
RMSD 3 4 1 2
TOTAL 12 13.3 11.3 11.3
Category Rank 3rd 4th 1st 1st

Table 15

Ranking of the different imputation methods: 20% NRR

20% NONRESPONSE RATE

IMPUTATION METHODS
VI CRITERIA
OMI3 HDI3 DRI3 SRI3
TOTEX2 N.B. 2 1 4 3
PCD 4 3 1 2
MD 2 1 4 3
MAD 3 4 1 2
RMSD 4 2 1 3
TOTAL 15 11 11 13
Category Rank 4th 1st 1st 3rd

TOTIN2 N.B. 3 4 2 1
PCD 4 1.3 1.3 1.3
MD 3 4 2 1
MAD 3 4 1 2
RMSD 3 4 1 2
TOTAL 16 17.3 7.3 7.3
Category Rank 3rd 4th 1st 1st

Table 16

Ranking of the different imputation methods: 30% NRR

30% NONRESPONSE RATE

`
VI CRITERIA
OMI3 HDI3 DRI3 SRI3
 TOTEX2 N.B. 1 3 4 2
PCD 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5
MD 1 3 4 2
MAD 3 4 1 2
RMSD 4 2 1 3
TOTAL 12.5 15.5 11.5 10.5
Category Rank 3rd 4th 2nd 1st

TOTIN2 N.B. 3 4 2 1
PCD 4 3 1.5 1.5
MD 3 4 2 1
MAD 3 4 1 2
RMSD 3 4 1 2
TOTAL 16 19 7.5 7.5
Category Rank 3rd 4th 1st 1st

Rankings show that the two regression imputation methods (RIMs)

provided better results than their model-free counterparts. For all the nonresponse rates

under the TOTIN2 variable, the two RIMs tied as the best imputation method, and

surprisingly the HDI3 finished the worst imputation method behind OMI. Under the

TOTEX2 variable, mixed rankings were seen for all nonresponse rates. The RIMs still

provided great results. The SRI3 method finished first in the 10% and 30% NRR and

ranked third in the 20% NRR while the DRI3 method finished third, first and second in

the 10%, 20% and 30% NRR respectively. While the HDI3 was seen as the worst IM for

TOTIN2, the OMI was concluded the worst IM for TOTEX2 by ranking last for both

10% and 20% NRR and third for the last NRR.

To conclude, the best imputation method for this study is the stochastic regression

imputation with three imputation classes using the 1997 FIES data. It is very closely

followed by the deterministic regression imputation with three imputation classes. The

SRI3 method never ranked last in all the criteria, NRRs and VIs, unlike for DRI3 which

provided the worst IM in the nonresponse bias and mean deviation criteria. The
researchers selected the HDI3 as the worst IM in this study. The HDI3 method fared the

worst in TOTIN2 and majority of the results in the different criteria under each NRR and

VI in particular under 30% NRR and in the TOTIN2 variable.