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) Chelune, G. J., Naugle, R. I., Lüders, H., Sedlak, J. and Awad, I. A. 1993. Individual change after epilepsy surgery: Practice effects and base-rate information. Neuropsychology, 7: 41–52. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], the regression-based method of McSweeny, Naugle, Chelune, and Lüders (1993) McSweeny, A. J., Naugle, R. I., Chelune, G. J. and Lüders, H. 1993. “T Scores for change”: An illustration of a regression approach to depicting change in clinical neuropsychology. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7: 300–312. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar], and a recently proposed adjustment to the latter procedure (Maassen, 2003 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]). 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.