Cautions on the Use of Multiple Imputation When Selecting Between Latent Categorical versus Continuous Models for Psychological Constructs.

Clinical psychology researchers studying adolescents and young adults long have been interested in characterizing the latent categorical (classes/profiles) versus continuous (factors) nature of psychological syndromes. To inform this debate, researchers sometimes compare the fit of finite mixture versus factor analysis models to symptom data. This study explains and evaluates how missing data handling methods can impact results of this important model fit comparison. Via simulation, we assess three missing data-handling methods previously recommended to researchers fitting these models: multiple imputation using a saturated multivariate normal imputation model, multiple imputation using a hypothesized model, or full information maximum likelihood using the EM algorithm (FIML-EM). Results show that, under certain conditions, the method used to handle missing data can interfere with clinical psychologists' ability to accurately discriminate latent classes from continua. For instance, certain imputation methods increase the chance of selecting latent continua when latent classes truly exist. FIML-EM performed best overall. Recommendations for practice are discussed.