The Two Errors of Using the Within-Subject Standard Deviation (WSD) as the Standard Error of a Reliable Change Index

In this Journal, Lewis and colleagues introduced a new Reliable Change Index (RCIWSD), which incorporated the within-subject standard deviation (WSD) of a repeated measurement design as the standard error. In this note, two opposite errors in using WSD this way are demonstrated. First, being the sta...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Archives of clinical neuropsychology 2010-08, Vol.25 (5), p.451-456
Main Author: Maassen, Gerard H
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Humans
Neuropsychological Tests - statistics & numerical data
Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - statistics & numerical data
Psychometrics
reliable change index
Reproducibility of Results
standard error
within-subject standard deviation
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!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-50f5ab0472ad13a32426abe4f5cd01912000e383705ae44b1a0f98a3aeb2e72d3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-50f5ab0472ad13a32426abe4f5cd01912000e383705ae44b1a0f98a3aeb2e72d3
container_end_page 456
container_issue 5
container_start_page 451
container_title Archives of clinical neuropsychology
container_volume 25
creator Maassen, Gerard H
description In this Journal, Lewis and colleagues introduced a new Reliable Change Index (RCIWSD), which incorporated the within-subject standard deviation (WSD) of a repeated measurement design as the standard error. In this note, two opposite errors in using WSD this way are demonstrated. First, being the standard error of measurement of only a single assessment makes WSD too small when practice effects are absent. Then, too many individuals will be designated reliably changed. Second, WSD can grow unlimitedly to the extent that differential practice effects occur. This can even make RCIWSD unable to detect any reliable change.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/arclin/acq036
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733986320</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>733986320</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-50f5ab0472ad13a32426abe4f5cd01912000e383705ae44b1a0f98a3aeb2e72d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkEtLw0AQgBdRbH0cvcre1EPsPpJscrQvKyiCrVS8LJNkYlfTRHe3Wv-91Wo9Dcx8fDAfIUecnXOWyg7YvDJ1B_I3JuMt0uaJkkGUhHKbtFmSqCDmSrXInnPPjLGIc7FLWoJFTKVh2iZ-MkM6-WjowNrGOtqU9N6Z-on61X5q_MzUwXiRPWPu6dhDXYAtaB_fDXjT1PR0Ou6fUXA_-Ob-4_pWAb3DykBWIe3NoH5CelUXuDwgOyVUDg9_5z65Hw4mvVFwfXt51bu4DnIZpz6IWBlBxkIloOASpAhFDBmGZZQXjKdcrB5CmUjFIsAwzDiwMk1AAmYClSjkPjlZe19t87ZA5_XcuByrCmpsFk4rKdMkloKtyGBN5rZxzmKpX62Zg_3UnOnvznrdWa87r_jjX_Mim2Oxof_C_guN87jc3MG-6FhJFenRw6PudpPuzXA60kJ-AQ18iRE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>733986320</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Two Errors of Using the Within-Subject Standard Deviation (WSD) as the Standard Error of a Reliable Change Index</title><source>Oxford Journals Online</source><creator>Maassen, Gerard H</creator><creatorcontrib>Maassen, Gerard H</creatorcontrib><description>In this Journal, Lewis and colleagues introduced a new Reliable Change Index (RCIWSD), which incorporated the within-subject standard deviation (WSD) of a repeated measurement design as the standard error. In this note, two opposite errors in using WSD this way are demonstrated. First, being the standard error of measurement of only a single assessment makes WSD too small when practice effects are absent. Then, too many individuals will be designated reliably changed. Second, WSD can grow unlimitedly to the extent that differential practice effects occur. This can even make RCIWSD unable to detect any reliable change.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0887-6177</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-5843</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/arclin/acq036</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20507949</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Data Interpretation, Statistical ; Humans ; Neuropsychological Tests - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Psychometrics ; reliable change index ; Reproducibility of Results ; standard error ; within-subject standard deviation</subject><ispartof>Archives of clinical neuropsychology, 2010-08, Vol.25 (5), p.451-456</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-50f5ab0472ad13a32426abe4f5cd01912000e383705ae44b1a0f98a3aeb2e72d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-50f5ab0472ad13a32426abe4f5cd01912000e383705ae44b1a0f98a3aeb2e72d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20507949$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Maassen, Gerard H</creatorcontrib><title>The Two Errors of Using the Within-Subject Standard Deviation (WSD) as the Standard Error of a Reliable Change Index</title><title>Archives of clinical neuropsychology</title><addtitle>Arch Clin Neuropsychol</addtitle><description>In this Journal, Lewis and colleagues introduced a new Reliable Change Index (RCIWSD), which incorporated the within-subject standard deviation (WSD) of a repeated measurement design as the standard error. In this note, two opposite errors in using WSD this way are demonstrated. First, being the standard error of measurement of only a single assessment makes WSD too small when practice effects are absent. Then, too many individuals will be designated reliably changed. Second, WSD can grow unlimitedly to the extent that differential practice effects occur. This can even make RCIWSD unable to detect any reliable change.</description><subject>Data Interpretation, Statistical</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Neuropsychological Tests - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>reliable change index</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>standard error</subject><subject>within-subject standard deviation</subject><issn>0887-6177</issn><issn>1873-5843</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpFkEtLw0AQgBdRbH0cvcre1EPsPpJscrQvKyiCrVS8LJNkYlfTRHe3Wv-91Wo9Dcx8fDAfIUecnXOWyg7YvDJ1B_I3JuMt0uaJkkGUhHKbtFmSqCDmSrXInnPPjLGIc7FLWoJFTKVh2iZ-MkM6-WjowNrGOtqU9N6Z-on61X5q_MzUwXiRPWPu6dhDXYAtaB_fDXjT1PR0Ou6fUXA_-Ob-4_pWAb3DykBWIe3NoH5CelUXuDwgOyVUDg9_5z65Hw4mvVFwfXt51bu4DnIZpz6IWBlBxkIloOASpAhFDBmGZZQXjKdcrB5CmUjFIsAwzDiwMk1AAmYClSjkPjlZe19t87ZA5_XcuByrCmpsFk4rKdMkloKtyGBN5rZxzmKpX62Zg_3UnOnvznrdWa87r_jjX_Mim2Oxof_C_guN87jc3MG-6FhJFenRw6PudpPuzXA60kJ-AQ18iRE</recordid><startdate>20100801</startdate><enddate>20100801</enddate><creator>Maassen, Gerard H</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100801</creationdate><title>The Two Errors of Using the Within-Subject Standard Deviation (WSD) as the Standard Error of a Reliable Change Index</title><author>Maassen, Gerard H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-50f5ab0472ad13a32426abe4f5cd01912000e383705ae44b1a0f98a3aeb2e72d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Data Interpretation, Statistical</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Neuropsychological Tests - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>reliable change index</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>standard error</topic><topic>within-subject standard deviation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Maassen, Gerard H</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Archives of clinical neuropsychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Maassen, Gerard H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Two Errors of Using the Within-Subject Standard Deviation (WSD) as the Standard Error of a Reliable Change Index</atitle><jtitle>Archives of clinical neuropsychology</jtitle><addtitle>Arch Clin Neuropsychol</addtitle><date>2010-08-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>451</spage><epage>456</epage><pages>451-456</pages><issn>0887-6177</issn><eissn>1873-5843</eissn><abstract>In this Journal, Lewis and colleagues introduced a new Reliable Change Index (RCIWSD), which incorporated the within-subject standard deviation (WSD) of a repeated measurement design as the standard error. In this note, two opposite errors in using WSD this way are demonstrated. First, being the standard error of measurement of only a single assessment makes WSD too small when practice effects are absent. Then, too many individuals will be designated reliably changed. Second, WSD can grow unlimitedly to the extent that differential practice effects occur. This can even make RCIWSD unable to detect any reliable change.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>20507949</pmid><doi>10.1093/arclin/acq036</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0887-6177
ispartof Archives of clinical neuropsychology, 2010-08, Vol.25 (5), p.451-456
issn 0887-6177
1873-5843
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733986320
source Oxford Journals Online
subjects Data Interpretation, Statistical
Humans
Neuropsychological Tests - statistics & numerical data
Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - statistics & numerical data
Psychometrics
reliable change index
Reproducibility of Results
standard error
within-subject standard deviation
title The Two Errors of Using the Within-Subject Standard Deviation (WSD) as the Standard Error of a Reliable Change Index
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T23%3A13%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Two%20Errors%20of%20Using%20the%20Within-Subject%20Standard%20Deviation%20(WSD)%20as%20the%20Standard%20Error%20of%20a%20Reliable%20Change%20Index&rft.jtitle=Archives%20of%20clinical%20neuropsychology&rft.au=Maassen,%20Gerard%20H&rft.date=2010-08-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=451&rft.epage=456&rft.pages=451-456&rft.issn=0887-6177&rft.eissn=1873-5843&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/arclin/acq036&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E733986320%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-50f5ab0472ad13a32426abe4f5cd01912000e383705ae44b1a0f98a3aeb2e72d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=733986320&rft_id=info:pmid/20507949&rfr_iscdi=true