Multiple imputation with path analysis PreviousNext
Mplus Discussion > Missing Data Modeling >
 ZHAOWEN CHENG posted on Sunday, June 04, 2017 - 6:20 pm
Dear Dr. Muthen,
I am self-learning Mplus. I would like to use path analysis with binary mediator and continuous outcome. The missing pattern for outcome variable is not missing at random. I'd like to use multiple imputation first and then do the path analysis.
However, I do not know how to combine path analysis with multiple imputation in syntax. Could you please give me some example? thank you.

Thank you!

This is a part of the command for path analysis without imputation.


acrfreg2 ON d_wk2 d_wk3 d_wk4
age female married income_h bd001 ja001_2
chnsg cd_w1 srh_1 srh_2 acrfreg;

cd_w2 ON d_wk2 d_wk3 d_wk4
age female married income_h bd001 ja001_2
chnsg cd_w1 srh_1 srh_2 h1kcntf h1fcany
acrfreg2 acrfreg;

cd_w2 IND d_wk2;
cd_w2 IND d_wk3;
cd_w2 IND d_wk4;


 Bengt O. Muthen posted on Monday, June 05, 2017 - 3:52 pm
There is no need for multiple imputation - no advantage. Just use ML and its default MAR method for handling missing data.

Also, you need a counterfactual approach to estimate indirect effects with a binary mediator - see
 ZHAOWEN CHENG posted on Monday, June 05, 2017 - 5:12 pm
Thank you so much!
I still have another question.
I am now using WLSMV. I am not sure either WLSMV or ML is better for my situation. I think both of them could handle missing values of DV.
And my continuous DV is a little bit right skewness. So do you think which estimator is better?
 Bengt O. Muthen posted on Monday, June 05, 2017 - 6:09 pm
I would use MLR.
 ZHAOWEN CHENG posted on Monday, June 05, 2017 - 7:45 pm
Thank you again!
 ZHAOWEN CHENG posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2017 - 12:16 pm
Dear Dr. Muthen,
I found the MLR or ML with bootstrap doesn't give some model fit statistics as WLSMV. So,

1. how to convince the model is fit well?

2. Could I use MLR or ML with bootstrap to get coefficients and SEs, because of I have missing data for my outcome variable. Then I also use WLSMV to show there are good CFI and RMSEA.

3. I am not sure what is the difference between Type=Complex and Type=general, if I'd like do a path analysis with national survey data.

Thank you!
 Bengt O. Muthen posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2017 - 6:27 pm
1. You can use TECH10 or you can use "neighboring models", that is, a less restrictive model where you check if its extra parameters are significant.

2. No, you have to stick to one estimator.

3. Read the intro to UG chapter 9 and the references given there.
 ZHAOWEN CHENG posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2017 - 10:25 am
Thank you for so much help!
1. TECH10 cannot be printed because of having covariates in my model.

2. My mediator is binary, but my outcome variable is continuous. So could I calculate other fit indices?

3. I know ML is better to handle missing values than WLSMV.
But if the results didn't change much. Could I use WLSMV instead in order to get fit indices.
I have 16% of missingness for the continuous outcome variable.

 Bengt O. Muthen posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2017 - 6:09 pm
2. Try "neighboring models" that are less restrictive as I suggested earlier.

3. You can mention the WLSMV fit but you can't fully rely on it.

You can also try the Bayes estimator which gives fit info (but you need to study our Bayes videos first).
Back to top
Add Your Message Here
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message