IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/3kthg.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

When (Not) to Rely on the Reliable Change Index

Author

Listed:
  • McAleavey, Andrew Athan

    (Weill Cornell Medical College)

Abstract

The reliable change index (RCI) is a widely used statistical tool designed to account for measurement error when evaluating difference scores. Because of its conceptual simplicity and computational ease, it persists in research and applied psychology. However, researchers have repeatedly demonstrated ways that the RCI is insufficient or invalid for various applications. This is a problem in research and clinical psychology since this common tool is potentially problematic. The aims of this manuscript are to non-technically describe the formulation and assumptions of the RCI, to offer guidance as to when the RCI is (and is not) appropriate, and to identify what is needed for proper calculation of the RCI when it is used. Several criteria are identified to help determine whether the RCI is appropriate for a specific use. It is apparent that the RCI is the best available method only in a small number of situations, is frequently miscalculated, and produces incorrect inferences more often than simple alternatives, largely because it is highly insensitive to real changes. Specific alternatives are offered which may better operationalize common inferential tasks, including when more than two observations are available and when false negatives are equally costly to false positives.

Suggested Citation

  • McAleavey, Andrew Athan, 2021. "When (Not) to Rely on the Reliable Change Index," OSF Preprints 3kthg, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:3kthg
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/3kthg
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/619b94998dbcf80493eda59d/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/3kthg?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gerard Maassen, 2000. "Kelley's formula as a basis for the assessment of reliable change," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 65(2), pages 187-197, June.
    2. Louis Guttman, 1945. "A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 10(4), pages 255-282, December.
    3. R. Cattell & A. Cattell & R. Rhymer, 1947. "P-technique demonstrated in determining psychophysiological source traits in a normal individual," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 12(4), pages 267-288, December.
    4. Ron D. Hays & Karen L. Spritzer & Steven P. Reise, 2021. "Using Item Response Theory to Identify Responders to Treatment: Examples with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Physical Function Scale and Emotional Distress Comp," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(3), pages 781-792, September.
    5. Yongnam Kim & Peter M. Steiner, 2021. "Gain Scores Revisited: A Graphical Models Perspective," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(3), pages 1353-1375, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anne-Catherine Guio & David Gordon & Eric Marlier & Hector Najera & Marco Pomati, 2018. "Towards an EU measure of child deprivation," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 11(3), pages 835-860, June.
    2. Klaas Sijtsma, 2012. "Future of Psychometrics: Ask What Psychometrics Can Do for Psychology," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 77(1), pages 4-20, January.
    3. Jos Berge & Gregor Sočan, 2004. "The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 613-625, December.
    4. Xia, Ye-Mao & Tang, Nian-Sheng & Gou, Jian-Wei, 2016. "Generalized linear latent models for multivariate longitudinal measurements mixed with hidden Markov models," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 259-275.
    5. W. Nicewander, 1990. "A latent-trait based reliability estimate and upper bound," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 65-74, March.
    6. Walter Kristof, 1974. "Estimation of reliability and true score variance from a split of a test into three arbitrary parts," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 39(4), pages 491-499, December.
    7. Eunseong Cho, 2021. "Neither Cronbach’s Alpha nor McDonald’s Omega: A Commentary on Sijtsma and Pfadt," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(4), pages 877-886, December.
    8. Wingyan Chung & Yinqiang Zhang & Jia Pan, 2023. "A Theory-based Deep-Learning Approach to Detecting Disinformation in Financial Social Media," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 473-492, April.
    9. Panzone, Luca A. & Wossink, Ada & Southerton, Dale, 2013. "The design of an environmental index of sustainable food consumption: A pilot study using supermarket data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 44-55.
    10. Klaas Sijtsma & Ivo Molenaar, 1987. "Reliability of test scores in nonparametric item response theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 52(1), pages 79-97, March.
    11. David J. Hessen, 2017. "Lower Bounds to the Reliabilities of Factor Score Estimators," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 648-659, September.
    12. Brian Woodhouse & Paul Jackson, 1977. "Lower bounds for the reliability of the total score on a test composed of non-homogeneous items: II: A search procedure to locate the greatest lower bound," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 42(4), pages 579-591, December.
    13. Anthony Conger & Raanan Lipshitz, 1973. "Measures of reliability for profiles and test batteries," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 38(3), pages 411-427, September.
    14. Érika Martins Silva Ramos & Cecilia Jakobsson Bergstad, 2021. "The Psychology of Sharing: Multigroup Analysis among Users and Non-Users of Carsharing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    15. Lee Cronbach & W. Warrington, 1951. "Time-limit tests: Estimating their reliability and degree of speeding," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(2), pages 167-188, June.
    16. Harold Gulliksen, 1961. "Measurement of learning and mental abilities," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 26(1), pages 93-107, March.
    17. Francisco G. Rodríguez-González & Paulina Segarra, 2016. "Measuring academic service performance for competitive advantage in tertiary education institutions: the development of the TEdPERF scale," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 13(2), pages 171-183, July.
    18. Thomas van Huizen & Madelon Jacobs & Matthijs Oosterveen, 2024. "Teacher bias or measurement error?," Papers 2401.04200, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    19. Jules L. Ellis, 2021. "A Test Can Have Multiple Reliabilities," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(4), pages 869-876, December.
    20. Massimiliano Pastore & Luigi Lombardi, 2014. "The impact of faking on Cronbach’s alpha for dichotomous and ordered rating scores," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 1191-1211, May.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:3kthg. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.