Pairwise is a dangerous method in this case, IMO. If you delete pairwise then you'll end up with different numbers of observations contributing to different parts of your model, which can make interpretation difficult.
That being said, casewise deletion tends to discard lots and lots of information, so I suppose it depends on both the proportion of missing responses, and your sample size.
Personally, I would probably use the multiple imputation procedure in SPSS and run the analyses for each dataset, then combine if nothing looks odd.
This would be my strategy of choice with a high proportion of missing values, whereas if the number is small, case-wise would probably be my first choice.
If data are MCAR, one would like to find an unbiased estimated of alpha. This could possibly be done via multiple imputation or listwise deletion. However, the latter might lead to severe loss of data. A third way is something like pairwise deletion which is implemented via an na.rm option in alpha() of the ltm package and in cronbach.alpha() of the psych package.
At least IMHO, the former estimate of unstandardized alpha with missing data is biased (see below). This is due to the calculation of the total variance $\sigma^2_x$ via var(rowSums(dat, na.rm = TRUE)). If the data are centered around 0, positive and negative values cancel each other out in the calculation of rowSums. With missing data, this leads to a bias of rowSums towards 0 and therefore to an underestimation of $\sigma^2_x$ (and alpha, in turn). Contrarily, if the data are mostly positive (or negative), missings will lead to a bias of rowSums towards zero this time resulting in an overestimation of $\sigma^2_x$ (and alpha, in turn).
require("MASS"); require("ltm"); require("psych")
n <- 10000
it <- 20
V <- matrix(.4, ncol = it, nrow = it)
diag(V) <- 1
dat <- mvrnorm(n, rep(0, it), V) # mean of 0!!!
p <- c(0, .1, .2, .3)
names(p) <- paste("% miss=", p, sep="")
cols <- c("alpha.ltm", "var.tot.ltm", "alpha.psych", "var.tot.psych")
names(cols) <- cols
res <- matrix(nrow = length(p), ncol = length(cols), dimnames = list(names(p), names(cols)))
for(i in 1:length(p)){
m1 <- matrix(rbinom(n * it, 1, p[i]), nrow = n, ncol = it)
dat1 <- dat
dat1[m1 == 1] <- NA
res[i, 1] <- cronbach.alpha(dat1, standardized = FALSE, na.rm = TRUE)$alpha
res[i, 2] <- var(rowSums(dat1, na.rm = TRUE))
res[i, 3] <- alpha(as.data.frame(dat1), na.rm = TRUE)$total[[1]]
res[i, 4] <- sum(cov(dat1, use = "pairwise"))
}
round(res, 2)
## alpha.ltm var.tot.ltm alpha.psych var.tot.psych
## % miss=0 0.93 168.35 0.93 168.35
## % miss=0.1 0.90 138.21 0.93 168.32
## % miss=0.2 0.86 110.34 0.93 167.88
## % miss=0.3 0.81 86.26 0.93 167.41
dat <- mvrnorm(n, rep(10, it), V) # this time, mean of 10!!!
for(i in 1:length(p)){
m1 <- matrix(rbinom(n * it, 1, p[i]), nrow = n, ncol = it)
dat1 <- dat
dat1[m1 == 1] <- NA
res[i, 1] <- cronbach.alpha(dat1, standardized = FALSE, na.rm = TRUE)$alpha
res[i, 2] <- var(rowSums(dat1, na.rm = TRUE))
res[i, 3] <- alpha(as.data.frame(dat1), na.rm = TRUE)$total[[1]]
res[i, 4] <- sum(cov(dat1, use = "pairwise"))
}
round(res, 2)
## alpha.ltm var.tot.ltm alpha.psych var.tot.psych
## % miss=0 0.93 168.31 0.93 168.31
## % miss=0.1 0.99 316.27 0.93 168.60
## % miss=0.2 1.00 430.78 0.93 167.61
## % miss=0.3 1.01 511.30 0.93 167.43
Best Answer
When you have so much missing data, the first concern is why the data are missing. They can be missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR) or not missing at random (NMAR). Searching on
missing datahere, or on any of those terms in Google, should give you lots of information.Neither listwise nor pairwise deletion are good options with so much missing. If the data are MCAR or MAR, then it is certainly worthwhile looking at multiple imputation. Even if they are NMAR, multiple imputation may be best.
I don't know about
SPSScapacity with regard to multiple imputation (I am not an SPSS user) but bothRandSAShave excellent abilities in this regard.