Clarifying Discrepancies in Responsiveness Between Reliable Change Indices

Anton Dominic Hinton-Bayre

32 citations0/0 files storedArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychological Testing and Assessment Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Historical and Modern Theater Studies

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Several reliable change indices (RCIs) exist to evaluate statistically significant individual change with repeated neuropsychological assessment. Yet there is little guidance on model selection and subsequent implications. Using existing test-retest norms, key parameters were systematically evaluated for influence on different RCI models. METHOD: Normative test-retest data for selected Wechsler Memory Scale-IV subtests were chosen based on the direction and magnitude of differential practice (inequality of test and retest variance). The influence of individual relative position compared to the normative mean was systematically manipulated to evaluate for predictable differences in responsiveness for three RCI models. RESULTS: With respect to negative change, RCI McSweeny was most responsive when individual baseline scores were below the normative mean, irrespective of differential practice. When an individual score was greater than the normative mean, RCI Chelune was most responsive with lower retest variance, and RCI Maassen most responsive with greater retest variance. This pattern of results can change when test-retest reliability is excellent and there is greater retest variability. Order of responsiveness is reversed if positive change is of interest. CONCLUSION: RCI models tend to agree when the individual approximates the normative mean at baseline and test-retest variability is equal. However, no RCI model will be universally more or less responsive across all conditions, and model selection may influence subsequent interpretation of change. Given the systematic and predictable differences between models, a more rationale choice can now be made. While a consensus on RCI model preference does not exist, we prefer the regression-based model for several reasons outlined.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.

References

1991Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research.1991Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research.2012Scoring Higher the Second Time Around: Meta-Analyses of Practice Effects in Neuropsychological Assessment 2012Evidence-Based Indicators of Neuropsychological Change in the Individual Patient: Relevant Concepts and Methods 1999Detecting significant change in neuropsychological test performance: A comparison of four models 1993“TScores for Change”: An illustration of a regression approach to depicting change in clinical neuropsychology 1992Clinically significant change: Jacobson and Truax (1991) revisited.2001Detecting change: A comparison of three neuropsychological methods, using normal and clinical samples

Cited by

2020An examination of reliable change methods for measuring cognitive change with the Cogstate Computerized Battery: Research and clinical implications 2019Interpreting pediatric intelligence tests: a framework from evidence-based medicine 2018Components and Methods of Evaluating Reliable Change in Cognitive Function 2023Revisiting reliable change with Iverson (2001)

Explore the map →

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

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.