Specificity of reliable change models and review of the within-subjects standard deviation as an error term

Hinton-Bayre, Anton D. (2011) Specificity of reliable change models and review of the within-subjects standard deviation as an error term. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 26 1: 67-75. doi:10.1093/arclin/acq087


Author Hinton-Bayre, Anton D.
Title Specificity of reliable change models and review of the within-subjects standard deviation as an error term
Journal name Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0887-6177
1873-5843
Publication date 2011-02-01
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1093/arclin/acq087
Volume 26
Issue 1
Start page 67
End page 75
Total pages 9
Place of publication Oxford, United Kingdom
Publisher Oxford University Press
Abstract There is an ongoing debate over the preferred method(s) for determining the reliable change (RC) in individual scores over time. In the present paper, specificity comparisons of several classic and contemporary RC models were made using a real data set. This included a more detailed review of a new RC model recently proposed in this journal, that used the within-subjects standard deviation (WSD) as the error term. It was suggested that the RCWSD was more sensitive to change and theoretically superior. The current paper demonstrated that even in the presence of mean practice effects, false-positive rates were comparable across models when reliability was good and initial and retest variances were equivalent. However, when variances differed, discrepancies in classification across models became evident. Notably, the RC using the WSD provided unacceptably high false-positive rates in this setting. It was considered that the WSD was never intended for measuring change in this manner. The WSD actually combines systematic and error variance. The systematic variance comes from measurable between-treatment differences, commonly referred to as practice effect. It was further demonstrated that removal of the systematic variance and appropriate modification of the residual error term for the purpose of testing individual change yielded an error term already published and criticized in the literature. A consensus on the RC approach is needed. To that end, further comparison of models under varied conditions is encouraged.
Keyword Practice effects
RC
Statistical error
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collection: School of Medicine Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 2 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 3 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Thu, 28 Nov 2013, 03:09:21 EST by System User on behalf of School of Medicine