No abstract

No abstract

Background: This paper seeks to compare group statistical analysis with effect size, group measures of clinical significance (Reliable Change Index and normative comparison), and individual analysis of clinical significance. Method: Measures of variables important to parenting and child behavior improvement (Parenting Scale, Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory, and Parenting Stress Index [PSI]) were administered pre and post for a 9-to 10-week group Behavioral Parent Training Intervention. Analysis compares traditional group statistical significance testing with group measure of clinical significance and individual analysis of clinical significance.Results: All three measures demonstrated statistically significant differences from pre to post, with large effect sizes. Group measures of clinical significance, however, demonstrated meaningful change only on the PSI, while individual analysis showed improvements of 54% of participants at best and 0% at worst. Conclusions: Individual analysis of clinical significance provides valuable information in treatment outcomes and should be included as a standard practice in outcomes research. Key Practitioner Message• Treatment outcomes research that provides only group-level information can often obscure important information about the impact of treatment on individuals.• Statistical significance, and even large effect sizes can be driven by changes in relatively few individuals.• Clinical significance is a way of measuring the meaningfulness of change in treated individuals (e.g. are their scores in the 'normal' range).• Reporting on individual clinical significance helps improve the reader/practitioner's understanding of the true effect of the treatment on individuals.• Individual analysis of clinical significance provides valuable information in treatment outcomes and should be included as a standard practice in outcomes research.

No abstract

No abstract