You are on page 1of 26

# 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 TOTEX2 TOTIN2 102389.8 134119.4 Std.Dev 129866.6 216934.9 Minimum 8926.000 9067.000 Maximum 3203978 4357180 N 4130 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 χ2 = 151.78 (<0.0001) χ2 = 613.859 (<0.0001) χ2 = 358.436 (<0.0001) CODEX1 χ2 = 137.83 (<0.0001) χ2 = 687.342 (<0.0001) χ2 = 193.132 (<0.0001)

PROV CODES1 CODEP1

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 chisquare 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 CODIN1 CODEX1 0.192 0.183 0.386 0.408 0.295 0.216 Cramer's V CODIN1 CODEX1 0.111 0.105 0.273 0.288 0.17 0.125 Contingency Test CODIN1 CODEX1 0.188 0.18 0.36 0.378 0.283 0.211

PROV CODES1 CODEP1

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
Mean TOTIN2 IC1 IC2 IC3 TOTEX2 IC1 IC2 IC3 93588.32 186940.9 643191.2 Minimum 9067.000 14490.00 54790.00 Maximum 1340900 4215480 4357180 Std. Dev 75619.52 281852.3 829409.3 Valid N 2635 1434 61

74866.68 135510.8 413184.0

9025.000 13575.00 40505.00

731937.0 3203978 2726603

47517.69 151984.3 532577.1

2635 1434 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 No. Mean TOTEX2 10% 20% 30% TOTIN2 10% 20% 30% 3717 3304 2891 3717 3304 2891 102748.610 102219.791 100709.947 134821.662 133624.722 130685.596 Observations deleted No. Mean 413 826 1239 413 826 1239 99160.235 103069.697 106309.365 127799.121 136098.155 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) VI TOTEX2 (b) NRR 10% (c) IC IC1 IC2 (d) Model Fitted
y i=2.3740800.789973  LNFVE1i   y i=2.3653850.794573  LNFVE2i  

(e) R2 0.728 0.782 0.902 0.734 0.787 0.901 0.705 0.791 0.888 0.706 0.805 0.920 0.703 0.821 0.915 0.713 0.826 0.932

IC3 y i=1.2694740.890618  LNFVE3i   20% IC1 y =2.3743640.789949 LNFVE1  i i IC2
y i=2.3615620.794823  LNFVE2i  

IC3 y =1.2320730.889574 LNFVE3  i i 30% IC1 y =2.3731630.789773  LNFVE1  i i IC2 IC3 TOTIN2 10% IC1 IC2 IC3 20% IC1 IC2
y i=2.3561660.795439  LNFVE2i   y i=1.7227360.853004  LNFVE3i  y i=2.2366560.810047  LNFVI1i   y i=1.9707270.840702 LNFVI2i   y i=2.2868820.805997  LNFVI1i   y i=1.873206 0.849244  LNFVI2i   y i=0.9386500.938196  LNFVI3i  

(f) F-Stat (p-value) 6363.59 (<0.0001) 4574.95 (<0.0001) 516.90 (<0.0001) 5786.27 (<0.0001) 4268.38 (<0.0001) 434.66 (<0.0001) 4382.10 (<0.0001) 3841.35 (<0.0001) 333.71 (<0.0001) 5703.61 (<0.0001) 5261.48 (<0.0001) 642.98 (<0.0001) 4954.23 (<0.0001) 5275.06 (<0.0001) 517.04 (<0.0001) 4557.33 (<0.0001) 4793.39 (<0.0001) 574.82 (<0.0001)

 IC3 y i=0.9638180.936158 LNFVI3i 

30%

IC1 y =2.0668150.824476  LNFVI1  i i IC2 y =1.785109 0.856330  LNFVI2  i i IC3 y i=0.877192 0.939765  LNFVI3i  

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 r2 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
y bias of the population mean of the imputed data, Bias(  ' ), (d) the variance of the y population mean of the imputed data, Var(  ' ), (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
(a) VI TOTEX2 (b) NRR 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30% (c) BIAS y ( ' ) 640.66 499.43 -222.76 -597.84 -2855.49 -6093.27 (d) Var y (' ) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (f) MD -6406.60 -2497.14 20310.91 5978.39 14277.43 742.53 (g) MAD 56929.61 59555.36 90396.26 77502.27 87469.87 62388.11 (h) RMSD 108547.82 119193.32 271775.35 167206.24 244758.00 151740.94

(e) PCD 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTIN2

(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
(c) BIAS y ( ' ) 491.91 179.42 -606.37 -717.52 -3095.41 -6508.65 (d) Var y ( ' ) 408.44 913.04 1344.20 804.33 1778.01 2547.34

(a) VI TOTEX2

(b) NRR 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30%

(e) PCD 100.00% 96.90% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1.00%

(f) MD 4919.40 897.18 -2021.19 -7175.25 -15477.09 -21695.52

(g) MAD 78071.61 78292.63 81395.79 105369.15 111748.04 115087.13

(h) RMSD 79251.22 67149.16 71390.65 242022.99 297151.50 313814.92

TOTIN2

(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) BIAS y (' ) -720.46 -1469.57 -2266.38 -1128.45 -2211.82 -4137.78 (d) Var y ( ' ) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(a) VI TOTEX2

(b) NRR 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30%

(e) PCD 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

(f) MD -7204.56 -7347.86 -7554.61 -11284.46 -11059.09 -13792.60

(g) MAD 23839.82 23231.65 24082.88 32115.80 35274.03 34537.36

(h) RMSD 57726.62 53180.02 59795.67 77228.48 114957.43 103253.12

TOTIN2

(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) BIAS y (' ) 536.32 1080.12 398.39 897.11 -1815.39 356.50 (d) Var y ( ' ) 48.10 123.45 154.74 167.90 470.10 726.50

(a) VI TOTEX2

(b) NRR 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30%

(e) PCD 100.00% 98.40% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

(f) MD 5363.47 5400.71 1328.06 9043.98 -9076.98 1188.31

(g) MAD 33683.48 33782.60 32449.49 51363.17 57429.24 51886.73

(h) RMSD 70553.64 72487.39 72803.60 106374.39 148278.49 131429.61

TOTIN2

(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* <37859.5 10.90% 0.00% 13.90% 7.70% 9.50% 37869.5- 9.70% 0.00% 10.20% 8.70% 8.70% 47056.5- 9.70% 0.00% 9.70% 11.40% 6.10% 5492211.40% 0.00% 8.90% 12.30% 9.50% 632658.70% 0.00% 9.10% 11.10% 11.40% 738689.70% 0.00% 9.40% 12.60% 11.10% 8610310.90% 0.00% 9.40% 8.00% 11.10% 101947- 11.10% 100.00% 8.90% 11.40% 8.50% 126254.5- 9.00% 0.00% 8.90% 9.00% 12.20% 1699648.90% 0.00% 11.60% 7.70% 12.10% TOTIN2 <40570 405705156462006.573900.588127104801128000161669233907TV 9.70% 10.20% 9.40% 10.20% 9.00% 10.90% 11.90% 11.40% 7.70% 9.90% Imputation Procedures OMI HDI3* DRI3 SRI3* 0.00% 15.10% 6.10% 9.10% 0.00% 11.90% 8.70% 7.90% 0.00% 10.10% 14.50% 8.30% 0.00% 9.50% 10.70% 10.00% 0.00% 9.60% 12.80% 12.40% 0.00% 9.30% 9.20% 9.00% 100.00% 9.80% 9.90% 10.50% 0.00% 7.80% 11.10% 9.30% 0.00% 8.00% 10.70% 11.20% 0.00% 8.90% 6.30% 12.30%

* 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 TV GM HDI3* DRI3 9.40% 0.00% 14.30% 7.40% 9.70% 0.00% 10.40% 9.60% 11.60% 0.00% 9.70% 9.00% 10.00% 0.00% 9.00% 11.00% 9.60% 0.00% 9.20% 12.30% 8.40% 0.00% 9.40% 12.50% 9.60% 0.00% 9.30% 9.90% 11.30% 100.00% 8.70% 10.80% 9.70% 0.00% 8.70% 8.80% 10.70% 0.00% 11.30% 8.70% TV 10.00% 10.30% 11.70% 10.20% 8.60% 9.40% 9.10% 9.20% 11.30% 10.20% Imputation Procedures GM HDI3* DRI3 0.00% 15.70% 4.80% 0.00% 12.10% 11.90% 0.00% 10.10% 10.20% 0.00% 9.60% 11.70% 0.00% 9.50% 11.90% 0.00% 9.30% 9.60% 100.00% 9.70% 11.70% 0.00% 7.60% 9.80% 0.00% 7.80% 9.70% 0.00% 8.70% 8.70%

TOTEX2 <37859.5 37869.547056.554922632657386886103101947126254.5169964TOTIN2 <40570 405705156462006.573900.588127104801128000161669233907-

SRI3* 8.20% 7.60% 8.20% 7.90% 10.30% 11.90% 10.30% 11.80% 11.70% 12.10% SRI3* 11.80% 12.20% 11.30% 9.90% 8.50% 10.10% 9.00% 8.30% 8.90% 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* <37859.5 9.80% 0.00% 14.30% 7.80% 10.30% 37869.5- 8.80% 0.00% 10.40% 9.00% 9.60% 47056.5- 9.60% 0.00% 9.70% 9.40% 8.30% 549229.50% 0.00% 8.90% 10.80% 9.30% 6326511.00% 0.00% 9.20% 12.70% 10.10% 7386810.70% 0.00% 9.40% 11.50% 10.60% 8610310.70% 0.00% 9.40% 12.10% 9.80% 1019479.40% 100.00% 8.70% 8.80% 10.10% 126254.5- 11.00% 0.00% 8.70% 9.00% 8.10% 1699649.50% 0.00% 11.30% 9.00% 13.70% TOTIN2 <40570 405705156462006.573900.588127104801128000161669233907TV 9.40% 9.00% 9.90% 10.70% 10.20% 10.30% 10.30% 9.80% 10.70% 9.90% Imputation Procedures GM HDI3* DRI3 SRI3* 0.00% 15.60% 6.50% 8.90% 0.00% 12.10% 10.40% 8.20% 0.00% 10.10% 10.80% 8.80% 0.00% 9.60% 11.50% 10.10% 0.00% 9.50% 12.20% 11.00% 0.00% 9.30% 10.70% 10.20% 100.00% 9.70% 10.50% 10.40% 0.00% 7.60% 11.20% 10.80% 0.00% 7.70% 8.20% 10.30% 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. PCD MD MAD RMSD TOTAL Category Rank 1 4 1 3 3 12 3rd 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. PCD MD MAD RMSD TOTAL Category Rank 3 4 3 3 3 16 3rd 4 1.3 4 4 4 17.3 4th 2 1.3 2 1 1 7.3 1st 1 1.3 1 2 2 7.3 1st 2 1.3 2 4 4 13.3 4th 4 1.3 4 1 1 11.3 1st 3 1.3 3 2 2 11.3 1st

Table 16 Ranking of the different imputation methods: 30% NRR 30% NONRESPONSE RATE ` VI CRITERIA OMI3 HDI3 TOTEX2 N.B. 1 3 PCD 3.5 3.5 MD 1 3 MAD 3 4 RMSD 4 2 TOTAL 12.5 15.5 Category Rank 3rd 4th TOTIN2 N.B. PCD MD MAD RMSD TOTAL Category Rank 3 4 3 3 3 16 3rd 4 3 4 4 4 19 4th

DRI3 SRI3 4 2 1.5 1.5 4 2 1 2 1 3 11.5 10.5 2nd 1st 2 1.5 2 1 1 7.5 1st 1 1.5 1 2 2 7.5 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.