Hi Dave: I'm not familiar with the WWC, but your email prompted me to take a look at their standards handbook at
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_standards_handbook_v4.pdf__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!AckH5BhOYbPDmObE0ynScTETKdcEKvZFJF8XFlC6ZoE8vD1nraio173bGltqUL4cSMMuCxA1DROD4Q$ The section on missing data seems to take a more balanced view than your email suggests. Am I missing something? Paul Paul D. Allison, Professor Emeritus Department of Sociology University of Pennsylvania 362 McNeil Building 3718 Locust Walk Philadelphia, PA 19104-6299 215-898-6717 ________________________________ From: Impute -- Imputations in Data Analysis <[email protected]> on behalf of David Judkins <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 2:50 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: WWC, Imputation, and JSM Dear ListServe Members, Many of you probably know this, but the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) in the United States has a strongly anti-imputation set of standards. I have been told my studies will get failing grades unless I redo the analyses without imputed data. I am trying to pull together a draft invited paper/panel session for JSM 2021 on this topic. Anyone interested? --Dave Judkins Abt Associates ________________________________ This message may contain privileged and confidential information intended solely for the addressee. Please do not read, disseminate or copy it unless you are the intended recipient. If this message has been received in error, we kindly ask that you notify the sender immediately by return email and delete all copies of the message from your system.
