Some issues on longitudinal data with nonignorable dropout, a discussion of “Statistical Inference for Nonignorable Missing-Data Problems: A Selective Review” by Niansheng Tang and Yuanyuan Ju
Lei Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/24754269.2018.1522575
2018-07-03
Statistical Theory and Related Fields
Abstract:We thank Tang and Ju for their review on statistical inference for univariate response data with nonignorable missing. In this paper, we mainly discuss some issues on longitudinal data with nonignorable dropout. In research areas such as medicine, population health, economics, social sciences and sample surveys, data are often collected from every sampled subject at T time points, which are referred to as longitudinal data. Let Y = (y1, . . . , yT) be aT dimensional vector of the study variable with distribution denoted by p(Y), and X be a q-dimensional time-independent continuous covariate associatedwithY. Our interest is to estimate parameters in p(Y) such as the mean vector E(Y). We consider the situation where X is always observed, but subjects may drop out prior to the end of the study, which results in incomplete Y data. Let R = (r1, . . . , rT) be the vector of response indicators, where rt = 1 if yt is observed and rt = 0 if yt , . . . , yT are not observed. Dropout is ignorable if the propensity p(R | Y ,X) is a function of the observed values (Little & Rubin, 2002), where p(· | ·) is a generic notation for conditional distribution or density. Otherwise, dropout is nonignorable. When missing data are ignorable dropout, Little (1995) presented some well-established methods. However, in practice dropout is often nonignorable (Troxel, Harrington, & Lipsitz, 1998). In this case, for identifiability Wang, Qi, and Shao (2018) assumed that X = (U,Z) with an instrument Z satisfying p(R | Y ,X) = p(R | Y ,U) and that p(Y | U,Z) depends onZ. Furthermore, a parametric dropout propensitymodel is also imposed as follows,
Computer Science