Skip to main content

Donor Limited Hot Deck Imputation: A Constrained Optimization Problem

  • Conference paper
Data Science, Learning by Latent Structures, and Knowledge Discovery

Abstract

Hot deck methods impute missing data by matching records that are complete to those that are missing values. Observations absent within the recipient are then replaced by replicating the values from the matched donor. Some hot deck procedures constrain the frequency with which any donor may be matched to increase the precision of post-imputation parameter-estimates. This constraint, called a donor limit, also mitigates risks of exclusively using one donor for all imputations or using one donor with an extreme value or values “too often.” Despite these desirable properties, imputation results of a donor limited hot deck are dependent on the recipients’ order of imputation, an undesirable property. For nearest neighbor type hot deck procedures, the implementation of a constraint on donor usage causes the stepwise matching between each recipient and its closest donor to no longer minimize the sum of all donor–recipient distances. Thus, imputation results may further be improved by procedures that minimize the total donor–recipient distance-sum. The discrete optimization problem is formulated and a simulation detailing possible improvements when solving this integer program is presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andridge, R. R., & Little, R. J. A. (2010). A review of hot deck imputation for survey nonresponse. International Statistical Review, 78, 40–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bankhofer, U., & Joenssen, D. W. (2014). On limiting donor usage for imputation of missing data via hot deck methods. In M. Spiliopoulou, L. Schmidt–Thieme, & R. Jannings (Eds.), Data analysis, machine learning and knowledge discovery (pp. 3–11). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, L., Schafer, J., & Kam, C. (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6, 330–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domschke, W. (1995). Logistik: Transport. München: Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford B. (1983). An overview of hot-deck procedures. In W. Madow, H. Nisselson, & I. Olkin (Eds.), Incomplete data in sample surveys (pp. 185–207). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genz, A., Bretz, F., Miwa, T., Mi, X., Leisch, F., Scheipl, F., et al. (2013). mvtnorm: Multivariate normal and distributions. R package version 0.9-9995. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mvtnorm.

  • Joenssen, D. W. (2013). HotDeckImputation: Hot deck imputation methods for missing data. R package version 0.1.0. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=HotDeckImputation.

  • Kalton, G., & Kish, L. (1984). Some efficient random imputation methods. Communications in Statistics Theory and Methods, 13, 1919–1939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovar, J. G., & Whitridge, J. (1995). Imputation of business survey data. In B. G. Cox, D. A. Binder, B. N. Chinnappa, A. Christianson, M. J. Colledge, & P. S. Kott (Eds.), Business survey methods (pp. 403–423). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Vienna: Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/

  • Reinfeld, N. V., & Vogel, W. R. (1958). Mathematical programming. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data (with discussion). Biometrika, 63, 581–592.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sande I. (1983). Hot-deck imputation procedures. In W. Madow, H. Nisselson, & I. Olkin (Eds.), Incomplete data in sample surveys (pp. 339–349). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, J., & Graham, J. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dieter William Joenssen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Joenssen, D.W. (2015). Donor Limited Hot Deck Imputation: A Constrained Optimization Problem. In: Lausen, B., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., Böhmer, M. (eds) Data Science, Learning by Latent Structures, and Knowledge Discovery. Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44983-7_28

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics