Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:25:55.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The standard error in the Jacobson and Truax Reliable Change Index: The classical approach to the assessment of reliable change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2004

GERARD H. MAASSEN
GERARD H. MAASSEN
Affiliation:
Department of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Researchers and clinicians using Jacobson and Truax's index to assess the reliability of change in patients, or its counterpart by Chelune et al., which takes practice effects into account, are confused by the different ways of calculating the standard error encountered in the literature (see the discussion started in this journal by Hinton-Bayre). This article compares the characteristics of (1) the standard error used by Jacobson and Truax, (2) the standard error of difference scores used by Temkin et al. and (3) an adaptation of Jacobson and Truax's approach that accounts for difference between initial and final variance. It is theoretically demonstrated that the last variant is preferable, which is corroborated by real data. (JINS, 2004, 10, 888–893.)

Keywords

Test–retest dataPractice effectsReliable changeStandard error of difference scoresStandard error of measurement of difference scores
Type
CRITICAL REVIEW
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 10 , Issue 6 , October 2004 , pp. 888 - 893
Copyright
© 2004 The International Neuropsychological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abramson, I.S. (2000). Reliable Change formula query: A statistician's comments. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chelune, G.J., Naugle, R.I., Lüders, H., Sedlak, J., & Awad, I.A. (1993). Individual change after epilepsy surgery: Practice effects and base-rate information. Neuropsychology, 7, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, L. & Mendoza, J.L. (1986). A method of assessing change in a single subject: An alteration of the RC index. Behavior Therapy, 17, 305–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, J.R., Howell, D.C., & Garthwaite, P.H. (1998). Payne and Jones revisited: Estimating the abnormability of test score differences using a modified paired samples t test. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20, 898–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikmen, S.S., Heaton, R.K., Grant, I., & Temkin, N.R. (1999). Test-retest reliability and practice effects of Expanded Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 5, 346–356.Google Scholar
Hinton-Bayre, A. (2000). Reliable Change formula query. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6, 362–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, N.S., Follette, W.C., & Revenstorf, D. (1984). Psychotherapy outcome research: Methods for reporting variability and evaluating clinical significance. Behavior Therapy, 15, 336–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, N.S. & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F.M. & Novick, M.R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Maassen, G.H. (2000a). Principles of defining reliable change indices. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22, 622–632.Google Scholar
Maassen, G.H. (2000b). Kelley's formula as a basis for the asessment of reliable change. Psychometrika, 65, 187–197.Google Scholar
Maassen, G.H. (2001). The unreliable change of reliable change indices. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 495–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maassen, G.H. (2003). Principes voor de definitie van reliable change (2): reliable change indices en practice effects [Principles of defining reliable change (2): Reliable Change Indices and practice effects]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 58, 69–79.Google Scholar
Matarazzo, J.D. & Herman, D.O. (1984). Base rate data for the WAIS–R: Test-retest stability and VIQ–PIQ differences. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 6, 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlinchey, J.B., Atkins, D.C., & Jacobson, N.S. (2002). Clinical significance methods: Which one to use and how useful are they? Behavior Therapy, 33, 529–550.Google Scholar
McNemar, Q. (1962). Psychological statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
McNemar, Q. (1969). Psychological statistics (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.
McSweeny, A.J., Naugle, R.I., Chelune, G.J., & Lüders, H. (1993). “T Scores for change”: An illustration of a regression approach to depicting change in clinical neuropsychology. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7, 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellenbergh, G.J. & Van den Brink, W.P. (1998). The measurement of individual change. Psychological Methods, 3, 470–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speer, D.C. (1999). What is the role of two-wave designs in clinical research? Comment on Hageman and Arrindell. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 1203–1210.Google Scholar
Temkin, N.R., Heaton, R.K., Grant, I., & Dikmen, S.S. (1999). Detecting significant change in neuropsychological test performance: A comparison of four models. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 5, 357–369.Google Scholar
Temkin, N.R., Heaton, R.K., Grant, I., & Dikmen, S.S. (2000). Reliable Change formula query: Temkin et al. reply. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6, 364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar