What do Temkin's simulations of reliable change tell us?

Abstract

Due to space limitations I have chosen to confine my reply to the comments by Temkin (this issue, pp. 899–901) that touch most directly the concepts of practice effects and reliable change. Temkin seems to portray my adherence to the classic approach as a private affair. However, Temkin herself (Temkin et al., 1999) reported to utilize the most widely applied procedures of Jacobson and Truax and of Chelune et al., which are based on the classic approach. For unexplained reasons they had substituted a different standard error. The unsatisfactory justification later given in their reply to Hinton-Bayre's (2000) letter revealed the presumably actual reason: unfamiliarity with psychometrics including the classical test theory (CTT). Not surprisingly, Temkin ignores this historical aspect in her comment. Nevertheless, the new post-hoc arguments she brings up deserve, of course, a fair evaluation.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.