When data are not missing at random (NMAR), maximum likelihood (ML) procedure will not generate consistent parameter estimates unless the missing data mechanism is correctly modeled. Understanding NMAR mechanism in a data set would allow one to better use the ML methodology. A survey or questionnaire may contain many items; certain items may be responsible for NMAR values in other items. The paper develops statistical procedures to identify the responsible items. By comparing ML estimates (MLE), statistics are developed to test whether the MLEs are changed when excluding items. The items that cause a significant change of the MLEs are responsible for the NMAR mechanism. Normal distribution is used for obtaining the MLEs; a sandwich-type covariance matrix is used to account for distribution violations. The class of nonnormal distributions within which the procedure is valid is provided. Both saturated and structural models are considered. Effect sizes are also defined and studied. The results indicate that more missing data in a sample does not necessarily imply more significant test statistics due to smaller effect sizes. Knowing the true population means and covariances or the parameter values in structural equation models may not make things easier either.

Mean comparisons are of great importance in the application of statistics. Procedures for mean comparison with manifest variables have been well studied. However, few rigorous studies have been conducted on mean comparisons with latent variables, although the methodology has been widely used and documented. This paper studies the commonly used statistics in latent variable mean modeling and compares them with parallel manifest variable statistics. Our results indicate that, under certain conditions, the likelihood ratio and Wald statistics used for latent mean comparisons do not always have greater power than the Hotelling T2 statistics used for manifest mean comparisons. The noncentrality parameter corresponding to the T2 statistic can be much greater than those corresponding to the likelihood ratio and Wald statistics, which we find to be different from those provided in the literature. Under a fixed alternative hypothesis, our results also indicate that the likelihood ratio statistic can be stochastically much greater than the corresponding Wald statistic. The robustness property of each statistic is also explored when the model is misspecified or when data are nonnormally distributed. Recommendations and advice are provided for the use of each statistic.