ArticleMultivariate behavioral research
Hypothesis Testing Methods for Multivariate Multi-Occasion Intra-Individual Change.
Article in Multivariate behavioral research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using Bayesian item response theory for multicohort repeated measure design to estimate individual latent change scores.Psychological methods · 2025Article
- Robustness of Adaptive Measurement of Change to Item Parameter Estimation Error.Educational and psychological measurement · 2022Article
- Adaptive Measurement of Change: A Novel Method to Reduce Respondent Burden and Detect Significant Individual-Level Change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Peer Group Embeddedness and Academic Motivation: A Developmental Perspective.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In psychological and educational measurement, it is often of interest to assess change in an individual. The current study expanded on previous research by introducing methods that can evaluate individual change on multiple latent traits measured on multiple occasions. The four methods considered are the likelihood ratio test (LRT), the multivariate Wald test (MWT), the modified multivariate Wald test (MMWT), and the score test (ST). Simulation studies were conducted to examine the true positive rate (TPR) and the false positive rate (FPR) of the new methods under a conventional fixed-form test and a computerized adaptive test (CAT). Manipulated variables included the number of occasions, change magnitudes, patterns of change, and correlations between latent traits. Results revealed that, in terms of FPR, all methods except MWT had close adherence to the nominal significance level. Among the three methods, the LRT is recommended as it provided a balance between FPR and TPR. Larger change magnitude yielded higher TPR, regardless of the remaining factors. With the same test length, a CAT yielded higher TPR than a conventional test. Real-data examples are provided of identifying psychometrically significant change across two to four occasions using a multivariate adaptive self-report medical outcomes measure from hospitalized patients. The detection of significant change among the three methods agreed highly, and those patients identified as having significant change exhibited large profile differences, which provided support for the valid performance of the proposed methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.