Table 2.
Pointwise simulation results for estimating the transition probability of absorbing state 1 at t1 = 0.4, t2 = 0.8 and t3 = 1.2, under the naïve approach, the complete case analysis (CC) and the proposed method, under Scenario 2.
| Bias×102 | MCSD×103 | ASE×103 | CP×102 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method (missing) | t1 | t2 | t3 | t1 | t2 | t3 | t1 | t2 | t3 | t1 | t2 | t3 |
| n = 200 | ||||||||||||
| Naïve | 8.3 | 12.1 | 13.5 | 30.7 | 35.2 | 36.6 | 30.6 | 35.0 | 36.7 | 20.6 | 5.4 | 3.8 |
| CC (80%) | −4.9 | −6.5 | −6.9 | 41.2 | 51.6 | 59.9 | 39.8 | 51.5 | 60.2 | 68.0 | 67.0 | 73.6 |
| CC (60%) | −2.4 | −3.0 | −3.2 | 35.8 | 43.8 | 48.7 | 35.1 | 43.4 | 48.7 | 84.2 | 85.8 | 85.4 |
| Proposed (80%) | −0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 44.7 | 57.1 | 62.6 | 42.6 | 54.8 | 60.2 | 93.2 | 93.4 | 93.1 |
| Proposed (60%) | −0.3 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 32.5 | 40.7 | 44.4 | 32.8 | 41.3 | 45.3 | 93.8 | 95.2 | 95.2 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| n = 400 | ||||||||||||
| Naïve | 8.5 | 12.1 | 13.6 | 21.9 | 24.8 | 26.1 | 21.7 | 24.7 | 25.9 | 1.8 | 0.1 | 0.0 |
| CC (80%) | −4.9 | −6.3 | −6.7 | 28.7 | 37.7 | 43.5 | 28.5 | 36.6 | 42.6 | 55.9 | 58.3 | 61.4 |
| CC (60%) | −2.3 | −2.9 | −2.9 | 24.8 | 31.6 | 35.6 | 24.8 | 30.7 | 34.3 | 81.3 | 80.3 | 83.0 |
| Proposed (80%) | −0.4 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 29.8 | 38.9 | 43.0 | 29.7 | 38.5 | 42.5 | 92.7 | 93.0 | 93.3 |
| Proposed (60%) | −0.4 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 22.5 | 28.6 | 31.3 | 23.0 | 29.0 | 31.9 | 94.5 | 95.7 | 95.0 |
MCSD, Monte Carlo standard deviation; ASE, average standard error; CP, coverage probability