Deriving reliable change statistics from test-retest normative data: Comparison of models and mathematical expressions

Hinton-Bayre, Anton. D (2010) Deriving reliable change statistics from test-retest normative data: Comparison of models and mathematical expressions. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 25 3: 244-256. doi:10.1093/arclin/acq008


Author Hinton-Bayre, Anton. D
Title Deriving reliable change statistics from test-retest normative data: Comparison of models and mathematical expressions
Journal name Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0887-6177
1873-5843
Publication date 2010-05-01
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1093/arclin/acq008
Volume 25
Issue 3
Start page 244
End page 256
Total pages 13
Place of publication Oxford, United Kingdom
Publisher Oxford University Press
Language eng
Abstract The use of reliable change (RC) statistics to determine whether an individual has significantly improved or deteriorated on retesting is growing rapidly in clinical neuropsychology. This paper demonstrates how with only basic test–retest data and a series of simple expressions, the clinician/researcher can implement the majority of contemporary RC model(s). Though sharing a fundamental structure, RC models vary in how they derive predicted retest scores and standard error terms. Published test–retest normative data and a simple case study are presented to demonstrate how to calculate several well-known RC scores. The paper highlights the circumstances under which models will diverge in the estimation of RC. Most importantly variations in individual's performance relative to controls at initial testing, practice effects, inequality of control variability from test to retest, and degree of reliability will see systematic and predictable disagreement among models. More generally, the limitations and opportunities of RC methodology were discussed. Although a consensus on preferred model continues to be debated, the comparison of RC models in clinical samples is encouraged. The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press
Keyword Assessment
Norms
Normative studies
Practice effects
Reliable change
Statistical methods
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Official 2011 Collection
School of Medicine Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 30 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 30 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sun, 09 May 2010, 10:06:16 EST