An alternative sensitivity approach for longitudinal analysis with dropout

0Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In any longitudinal study, a dropout before the final timepoint can rarely be avoided. The chosen dropout model is commonly one of these types: Missing Completely at Random (MCAR), Missing at Random (MAR), Missing Not at Random (MNAR), and Shared Parameter (SP). In this paper we estimate the parameters of the longitudinal model for simulated data and real data using the Linear Mixed Effect (LME) method. We investigate the consequences of misspecifying the missingness mechanism by deriving the so-called least false values. These are the values the parameter estimates converge to, when the assumptions may be wrong. The knowledge of the least false values allows us to conduct a sensitivity analysis, which is illustrated. This method provides an alternative to a local misspecification sensitivity procedure, which has been developed for likelihood-based analysis. We compare the results obtained by the method proposed with the results found by using the local misspecification method. We apply the local misspecification and least false methods to estimate the bias and sensitivity of parameter estimates for a clinical trial example.

References Powered by Scopus

Random-effects models for longitudinal data.

7160Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Using the general linear mixed model to analyse unbalanced repeated measures and longitudinal data

1071Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Estimation and comparison of changes in the presence of informative right censoring by modeling the censoring process

551Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Almohisen, A., Henderson, R., & Alshingiti, A. M. (2019). An alternative sensitivity approach for longitudinal analysis with dropout. Journal of Probability and Statistics, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1019303

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Researcher 2

50%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

25%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 1

25%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 1

25%

Nursing and Health Professions 1

25%

Neuroscience 1

25%

Medicine and Dentistry 1

25%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free