Imputation methods are popular for the handling of missing data in psychology. The methods generally consist of predicting missing data based on observed data, yielding a complete data set that is amiable to standard statistical analyses. In the context of Bayesian factor analysis, this article compares imputation under an unrestricted multivariate normal model (Multiple Imputation [MI]) to imputation under the statistical model of interest (Data Augmentation [DA]). The former method is popular in applied research, but the latter method is more straightforward from a Bayesian perspective. Simulations demonstrate that DA yields less-biased parameter estimates for moderate sample sizes and high missingness proportions. MI, however, yields less-biased parameter estimates for large sample sizes with misspecified models. The incorporation of auxiliary variables in DA is also addressed, and BUGS code is provided. (Contains 1 figure, 3 tables and 4 notes.)