1986
DOI: 10.1016/s0005-7894(86)80060-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A method of assessing change in a single subject: An alteration of the RC index

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
352
0
4

Year Published

1996
1996
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 482 publications
(358 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
2
352
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…His visual hypoemotionality was reflected by an increase in his Dissociative Experiences Scale-II total score (Carlson and Putnam, 1993), which rose from 20 at his pre-surgical assessment to 30 following his hemorrhage (Supplementary Table S1). This rise was significant according to the Reliable Change Index, a calculation that uses test-retest reliability and the standard deviation of the population sample to determine if a change exceeds expected random variability (Christensen and Mendoza, 1986). The quantitative rise in his Dissociative Experiences Scale-II total score, which was driven largely by an increase in the depersonalization/derealization factor from 20 to 54, suggests that his derealization was attributable to his injury and not to a pre-morbid condition.…”
Section: Case Reportmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…His visual hypoemotionality was reflected by an increase in his Dissociative Experiences Scale-II total score (Carlson and Putnam, 1993), which rose from 20 at his pre-surgical assessment to 30 following his hemorrhage (Supplementary Table S1). This rise was significant according to the Reliable Change Index, a calculation that uses test-retest reliability and the standard deviation of the population sample to determine if a change exceeds expected random variability (Christensen and Mendoza, 1986). The quantitative rise in his Dissociative Experiences Scale-II total score, which was driven largely by an increase in the depersonalization/derealization factor from 20 to 54, suggests that his derealization was attributable to his injury and not to a pre-morbid condition.…”
Section: Case Reportmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Individual-level change We examined changes in individuals' self-efficacy using a reliable change index (RCI; Christensen and Mendoza 1986;Jacobson and Truax 1991), which was developed to enable researchers who observe variability in a construct over multiple observations to distinguish between instances where variability can be attributed to imperfect measurement by an instrument and reliable change representing actual changes in a construct between observations. To make this distinction, differences in scores are examined in contrast to the standard error of the difference score (i.e., the spread of the distribution of change scores to be expected if no change occurred).…”
Section: Mean-level Changementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, although evaluating group-level changes is useful in determining the efficacy of treatment as a whole, evaluating treatment completers as a single cohort may attenuate or mask significant effects among those who do, or do not, receive benefit from treatment. To determine whether treatment is statistically significant for any particular treatment completer, clinicians must adopt an individual-centric methodology such as the reliable change index (RCI) (Barnett, Wakeling, Mandeville-Norden, & Rakestrow, 2013;Christensen & Mendoza, 1986) or measures of Clinically Significant Change (CSC) (Jacobson, Follette, & Revenstorf, 1986). Few violent offender treatment effectiveness studies have investigated this area and as yet (1) there is a lack of reliable and consistent findings linking within-treatment change with decreased recidivism and (2) no methodology has been proposed for integrating the results (as they pertain to clinically significant and reliable change) when multiple psychological tests like the battery used here, which produced divergent results, are used.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%