  Simulation is a crucial tool for the evaluation and comparison of statistical
methods. How to design fair and neutral simulation studies is therefore of
great interest for both researchers developing new methods and practitioners
confronted with the choice of the most suitable method. The term simulation
usually refers to parametric simulation, that is, computer experiments using
artificial data made up of pseudo-random numbers. Plasmode simulation, that is,
computer experiments using the combination of resampling feature data from a
real-life dataset and generating the target variable with a user-selected
outcome-generating model (OGM), is an alternative that is often claimed to
produce more realistic data. We compare parametric and Plasmode simulation for
the example of estimating the mean squared error of the least squares estimator
in linear regression. If the true underlying data-generating process (DGP) and
the OGM were known, parametric simulation would be the best choice in terms of
estimating the MSE well. However, in reality, both are usually unknown, so
researchers have to make assumptions: in Plasmode simulation studies for the
OGM, in parametric simulation for both DGP and OGM. Most likely, these
assumptions do not reflect the truth. Here, we aim to find out how assumptions
deviating from the true DGP and the true OGM affect the performance of
parametric simulation and Plasmode simulations in the context of MSE estimation
for the least squares estimator and in which situations which simulation type
is preferable. Our results suggest that the preferable simulation method
depends on many factors, including the number of features, and how the
assumptions of a parametric simulation differ from the true DGP. Also, the
resampling strategy used for Plasmode influences the results. In particular,
subsampling with a small sampling proportion can be recommended.
