Missing Data — Name the Mechanism, Impute Multiply, Pool by Rubin's Rules
Skill type: ANALYSIS MODULE. Missing data is not a nuisance to delete or fill with a mean. The discipline: state the missingness mechanism, then use a method whose uncertainty is honest — multiple imputation with Rubin's-rules pooling, or FIML. The dangerous shortcut is single imputation, which treats guessed values as observed and understates standard errors.
Core Mission
STATE THE MECHANISM (MCAR / MAR / MNAR). MULTIPLY IMPUTE AND POOL BY RUBIN'S RULES —
SINGLE IMPUTATION FAKES CERTAINTY IT DOESN'T HAVE.
When to Use This Skill
- "My dataset has missing values — how should I handle them?"
- "Should I use multiple imputation? How many imputations?"
- "How do I pool results across imputed datasets?"
- "Is mean imputation / listwise deletion okay here?"
Does NOT Trigger
| The request is really about… | Route to | Why not this skill |
|---|---|---|
| Modeling on already-complete data | alterlab-statistical-analysis / alterlab-statsmodels |
No missingness to handle. |
| FIML inside an SEM / latent-variable model | alterlab-sem-psychometrics |
That skill fits the latent model with FIML. |
| Survey weights / design (a different kind of "adjustment") | alterlab-survey-analysis |
Design-based inference, not imputation. |
| Whether the study design is sound | alterlab-ssci-design-gate |
Design routing. |
Step 1 — state the mechanism (Rubin)
| Mechanism | Meaning | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| MCAR | missingness independent of everything | listwise deletion is unbiased (but wasteful) |
| MAR | missingness depends on observed data | MI / FIML are valid (the workhorse assumption) |
| MNAR | missingness depends on the unobserved value itself | needs a selection / pattern-mixture model + sensitivity analysis |
The mechanism is an assumption, largely untestable (MAR vs MNAR especially) — state it and
justify it; inspect the missingness pattern (mice::md.pattern) and test MCAR (Little's test) as
supporting evidence, not proof.
Step 2 — multiple imputation with Rubin's-rules pooling
Create m completed datasets (each imputes with added noise reflecting uncertainty), analyze each, then pool: the point estimate is the mean across imputations; the SE combines within-imputation and between-imputation variance (Rubin's rules), so it honestly reflects imputation uncertainty.
Python — statsmodels MICE:
from statsmodels.imputation import mice
imp = mice.MICEData(df) # chained-equations imputer over the frame
fit = mice.MICE("y ~ x1 + x2", sm.OLS, imp).fit(n_burnin=10, n_imputations=20)
fit.summary() # pooled estimates + SEs (Rubin's rules)
R — mice (field standard):
library(mice)
md.pattern(data) # inspect the missingness pattern
imp <- mice(data, m = 20, method = "pmm") # m completed datasets
fit <- with(imp, lm(y ~ x1 + x2))
summary(pool(fit)) # Rubin's-rules pooling (fmi, lambda, df)
FIML — for likelihood/SEM models under MAR, full-information ML uses all available data without
explicit imputation; route to alterlab-sem-psychometrics when the model is latent-variable.
The single-imputation trap (verified caveat)
- Mean / regression / single imputation treats imputed values as if observed → biased, understated SEs. Not acceptable as a final analysis.
- scikit-learn
IterativeImputerreturns a single completed dataset and does not pool by Rubin's rules — the sklearn docs say so explicitly. It is fine for a prediction pipeline, but using it as "multiple imputation" for inference understates uncertainty. If you must, run it repeatedly withsample_posterior=Trueand different seeds and pool manually — butmice/statsmodels MICE do this correctly out of the box.
How many imputations (m)
Rule of thumb: m at least the percentage of incomplete cases (higher fraction of missing information → larger m); modern guidance often uses m ≈ 20–50. Report m and the fraction of missing information (FMI).
Reporting checklist
MECHANISM: MCAR / MAR / MNAR — stated and justified; pattern inspected (md.pattern)
METHOD: MICE (m, imputation model) with Rubin's-rules pooling | FIML | (deletion only if MCAR)
POOLING: estimates + SEs pooled by Rubin's rules; report FMI
SENSITIVITY: for MNAR, a sensitivity analysis (selection / pattern-mixture)
References
references/mechanisms_and_pooling.md— MCAR/MAR/MNAR detail, Rubin's-rules math, FIML vs MI, m guidance, the sklearn caveat.
Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.