Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Hot Deck Multiple Imputation for Handling Missing Accelerometer Data

  • Nicole M. Butera
  • , Siying Li
  • , Kelly R. Evenson
  • , Chongzhi Di
  • , David M. Buchner
  • , Michael J. LaMonte
  • , Andrea Z. LaCroix
  • , Amy Herring
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • University of California at San Diego
  • Duke University

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

10 Scopus citations

Abstract

Missing data due to non-wear are common in accelerometer studies measuring physical activity and sedentary behavior. Accelerometer outputs are high-dimensional time-series data that are episodic and often highly skewed, presenting unique challenges for handling missing data. Common methods for missing accelerometry either are ad-hoc, require restrictive parametric assumptions, or do not appropriately impute bouts. This study developed a flexible hot-deck multiple imputation (MI; i.e., “replacing” missing data with observed values) procedure to handle missing accelerometry. For each missing segment of accelerometry, “donor pools” contained observed segments from either the same or different participants, and ten imputed segments were randomly drawn from the donor pool according to selection weights, where the donor pool and selection weight depended on variables associated with non-wear and/or accelerometer-based measures. A simulation study of 2550 women compared hot deck MI to two standard methods in the field: available case (AC) analysis (i.e., analyzing all observed accelerometry with no restriction on wear time or number of days) and complete case (CC) analysis (i.e., analyzing only participants that wore the accelerometer for ≥ 10 h for 4–7 days). This was repeated using accelerometry from the entire 24-h day and daytime (10am–8pm) only, and data were missing at random. For the entire 24-h day, MI produced less bias and better 95% confidence interval (CI) coverage than AC and CC. For the daytime only, MI produced less bias and better 95% CI coverage than AC; CC produced similar bias and 95% CI coverage, but longer 95% CIs than MI.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)422-448
Number of pages27
JournalStatistics in Biosciences
Volume11
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 15 2019

Keywords

  • Accelerometer
  • High-dimensional data
  • Hot deck
  • Missing data
  • Multiple imputation
  • Physical activity

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Hot Deck Multiple Imputation for Handling Missing Accelerometer Data'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this