Reliable change and practice effects: Outcomes of various indices compared

In this article the outcomes of three indices for the assessment of reliable change (RCIs) are compared: the null hypothesis method of Chelune, Naugle, Lüders, Sedlak, and Awad (1993) , the regression-based method of McSweeny, Naugle, Chelune, and Lüders (1993) , and a recently proposed adjustment t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology 2009-04, Vol.31 (3), p.339-352
Main Authors: Maassen, Gerard H., Bossema, Ercolie, Brand, Nico
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biological and medical sciences
Humans
Mathematics
Medical sciences
Models, Statistical
Neuropsychological Tests
Practice (Psychology)
Practice effects
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychometrics
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Regression Analysis
Regression-based index
Reliable change index
Reproducibility of Results
Research Design - standards
Standard error of measurement of the difference
Standard error of prediction
Statistics
Techniques and methods
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In this article the outcomes of three indices for the assessment of reliable change (RCIs) are compared: the null hypothesis method of Chelune, Naugle, Lüders, Sedlak, and Awad (1993) , the regression-based method of McSweeny, Naugle, Chelune, and Lüders (1993) , and a recently proposed adjustment to the latter procedure ( Maassen, 2003 ). Simulated data demonstrated the importance of using large control samples. The regression-based method proved to be the most lenient in designating individuals as reliably changed, resulting in the most correct and the most incorrect designations. The adjusted procedure resulted in fewer correct designations and the lowest numbers of incorrect designations. Real-world data showed the same patterns.
ISSN:1380-3395
1744-411X
DOI:10.1080/13803390802169059