Missing data and bias in physics education research: A case for using multiple imputation

Jayson Nissen; Robin Donatello; Ben Van Dusen

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1809.00035

Missing data and bias in physics education research: A case for using multiple imputation

Jayson Nissen·Robin Donatello·Ben Van Dusen

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Physics education researchers (PER) commonly use complete-case analysis to address missing data. For complete-case analysis, researchers discard all data from any student who is missing any data. Despite its frequent use, no PER article we reviewed that used complete-case analysis provided evidence that the data met the assumption of missing completely at random (MCAR) necessary to ensure accurate results. Not meeting this assumption raises the possibility that prior studies have reported biased results with inflated gains that may obscure differences across courses. To test this possibility, we compared the accuracy of complete-case analysis and multiple imputation (MI) using simulated data. We simulated the data based on prior studies such that students who earned higher grades participated at higher rates, which made the data missing at random (MAR). PER studies seldom use MI, but MI uses all available data, has less stringent assumptions, and is more accurate and more statistically powerful than complete-case analysis. Results indicated that complete-case analysis introduced more bias than MI and this bias was large enough to obscure differences between student populations or between courses. We recommend that the PER community adopt the use of MI for handling missing data to improve the accuracy in research studies.

Explore related subjects

physics.ed-ph

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Jayson Nissen, Robin Donatello, Ben Van Dusen. 2018-08-31. Missing data and bias in physics education research: A case for using multiple imputation. https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.00035

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Questioning your brilliance in physics: Differential shifts in fixed mindsets by grade and gender

Students' domain-specific mindsets and their beliefs about their capacity to improve through effort play a crucial role in shaping their experiences and decisions to persist in STEM disciplines. Physics is generally seen as a field requiring innate brilliance, which can reinforce fixed mindsets, particularly after initial setbacks in performance that are common in introductory university courses. In this study, we examine changes in fixed mindsets and potential gender differences in an introductory calculus-based physics course. Our sample consisted of 508 students with an average age of 18, predominantly White, with men comprising the majority. Based upon survey response distributions, three distinct mindset categories were identified: Hesitant, Hopeful, and Confident, describing how strongly students rejected a fixed mindset in physics. The results suggested large gender differences in distributions at the high and low-end groups. We also found an overall decline toward fixed mindsets across the course, and logistic regressions controlling for initial mindsets showed that women were significantly more likely than men to shift away from the Confident category. While the majority of men tended to stay within the Confident category, the majority of women moved away from it. Particularly, this differential shift was seen among students receiving Bs or Cs, the most commonly awarded grades in this course. Furthermore, there were relatively small differences in the probability of change within men as a function of grades received, whereas women showed marked declines toward fixed beliefs with either a B or C. Our findings provide empirical evidence for the dynamic, grade-sensitive nature of students' mindsets in a calculus-based physics course.

physics.ed-ph↗

arXiv2026

Mechanics Cognitive Diagnostic: Testing Fine-Grained Learning Objectives in Introductory Physics

Physics courses use research-based assessments (RBAs) such as the Force Concept Inventory (FCI), Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE), and Energy and Momentum Conceptual Survey (EMCS) to measure learning in introductory mechanics, but their fixed-length, pretest-posttest design makes them retrospective: posttest scores summarize completed instruction and arrive after a course ends. We are developing the Mechanics Cognitive Diagnostic (MCD), a cognitive diagnostic computerized adaptive test that reports students' mastery of fine-grained learning objectives (LOs) throughout instruction. Using evidence-centered design, we defined 14 LOs from introductory mechanics textbooks and AP Physics standards, mapped FCI, FMCE, and EMCS items onto them with a Q-matrix, and refined the mapping with the deterministic inputs, noisy "and" gate (DINA) model, using posttest responses from 24,394 students in 807 courses across 79 institutions through LASSO. The FCI and EMCS achieved good DINA model fit; the FMCE showed marginal fit. Classification accuracy for most LOs met or exceeded benchmarks for low-stakes formative assessment. RBA items, though not developed for LO-level diagnosis, support it reliably, giving the MCD a working 14-LO item bank built from RBAs that physics courses already use. As data accumulate, we can revise or retire weak LOs and items and add new items through online calibration without interrupting testing. We plan to expand the MCD to 35 LOs, two per week, to cover a typical introductory mechanics course.

physics.ed-ph↗

arXiv2026

GW Explorer: A Beginner's Guide -- Developing a Computational Gravitational-Wave Outreach Curriculum for High School Students

We present GW Explorer: A Beginner's Guide, an outreach curriculum designed to introduce high school students to gravitational-wave (GW) astrophysics through interactive Python Jupyter notebooks. Most existing GW resources target beginning audiences and advanced students, leaving a gap at the pre-college level that we directly address. The curriculum integrates foundational physics with hands-on computation implemented through both self-directed and workshop-based instructional formats. In the self-directed format, students completed the curriculum independently on cloud-based platforms such as Google Colab. During the workshop format, students worked through the same activities under the guidance of University of Nevada, Las Vegas graduate student mentors. Topics span gravity, spacetime, GW sources, interferometric detection, and data analysis. An implementation in local high school classrooms informed the content and pacing, and survey results demonstrate gains in conceptual understanding and coding confidence. GW Explorer offers a scalable, open-access framework for authentic astrophysics research in the high school classroom.

physics.ed-ph↗