ReviewPsychometrika2018
Review of Issues About Classical Change Scores: A Multilevel Modeling Perspective on Some Enduring Beliefs.
Review in Psychometrika, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability of Difference Scores Obtained From Nested Data Within a Multivariate Generalizability Theory Framework.Educational and psychological measurement · 2026Article
- Effects of mental fatigue on basketball-specific decision-making in basketball players of different skill levels: the mediating role of attentional control.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Inferring meaningful change in quality of life with posterior predictive distribution: an alternative to standard error of measurement.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Character Growth Following Collective Life Events: A Study on Perceived and Measured Changes in Character Strengths During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic.European journal of personality · 2022Article
- Moderators and Predictors of Response After 36 Weeks of Treatment in the Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study (TADS).Research on child and adolescent psychopathology · 2021Article
- Precision and Sample Size Requirements for Regression-Based Norming Methods for Change Scores.Assessment · 2021Article
- Disentangling Within- and Between-Person Effects During Response Inhibition in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Longitudinal changes in DLPFC activation during childhood are related to decreased aggression following social rejection.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Change scores obtained in pretest-posttest designs are important for evaluating treatment effectiveness and for assessing change of individual test scores in psychological research. However, over the years the use of change scores has raised much controversy. In this article, from a multilevel perspective, we provide a structured treatise on several persistent negative beliefs about change scores and show that these beliefs originated from the confounding of the effects of within-person change on change-score reliability and between-person change differences. We argue that psychometric properties of change scores, such as reliability and measurement precision, should be treated at suitable levels within a multilevel framework. We show that, if examined at the suitable levels with such a framework, the negative beliefs about change scores can be renounced convincingly. Finally, we summarize the conclusions about change scores to dispel the myths and to promote the potential and practical usefulness of change scores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29713915What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.