Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research.

In the citing paper

“A change of 6.39 on the Y-BOCS was considered reliable.”

In the citing paper

“The brief version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-II) 47,48 is a 12-item self-report measure that has evidence of reliability and validity for assessing various aspects of psychosocial and physical disability.”

In the citing paper

“we examined if the changes in distress tolerance were clinically significant (as indexed by the reliable change index (RCI; Jacobson and Truax, 1991)).”

In the citing paper

“Formative indicators of working memory, inhibitory control, and set shifting were derived, and these participant-level component scores were subjected to reliable change analyses (Jacobson & Truax, 1991) that explicitly account for measurement error to objectively define impairment (Kofler et al., 2016; Sarver et al., 2015).”

In the citing paper

“Clinical significance at post-intervention was operationalized by the recommended reliable change index and cut-off points (Jacobson and Truax 1991; Vollestad et la. 2011)”

In the citing paper

“The reliable change index (RCI) (Jacobson & Truax, 1991) was used as a means of calculating clinical significance of the changes on the TFI.”

In the citing paper

“Patient safety was measured via adverse event monitoring on three indices (1) crisis/home treatment team involvement during the intervention (present/absent and number of treatment days); (2) inpatient hospitalization days during the intervention (present/absent and number of inpatient days); and (3) a reliable deterioration on the CORE-OM (see below) as defined by Jacobson and Truax (1991).”

In the citing paper

“Using Jacobson criteria for defining recovery, 80% of the MCT group were recovered at post-treatment and 12 month follow-up as measured by the Penn State Worry Questionnaire, compared with 10% of patients who had received relaxation.”

In the citing paper

“Jacobson & Truax (1991) criteria for defining reliable improvement and recovery demonstrated that 87% of patients were recovered at post treatment as assessed by trait-anxiety and 75% remained recovered at 6 and 12 month follow-up.”

In the citing paper

“Reliable change indices 18 provided fi ner grained detail with a minimum of 15 (44%) inperson participants achieving reliable improvement on at least one measure (CPAQ)”

In the citing paper

“Caseness data were unavailable for the CompACT-8; therefore, Jacobson and Truax’s “criterion a” was used to tentatively estimate thresholds (Jacobson & Truax, 1991).”

In the citing paper

“The RCI is considered a reliable indicator to test the efficacy of a particular therapy or program and can show whether an individual improves or deteriorates in comparison to pretreatment.”

In the citing paper

“To determine whether the detected change is in fact reliable, the RCI also considers normative data and the measurement error of the scale (Jacobson & Truax, 1991).”

In the citing paper

“It was based on the Jacobson and Truax model for clinical significance [27].”

In the citing paper

“Reliability of change was calculated based on the reliable change index (RCI) according to Jacobson and Truax (24).”

In the citing paper

“The SDC and LOA provide indices determining whether the change in scores in a scale can be considered true change or not (Shimoi, 2011) and play similar roles to the reliable change index (Jacobson & Truax, 1991).”

In the citing paper

“The patients' psychological inflexibility clinically reduced; that is, most moved from the dysfunctional to the functional group according to the AAQ-II scores (Jacobson & Truax, 1991).”

In the citing paper

“RCIs lower than -1.96 indicate reliable symptom improvement [33].”

In the citing paper

“When the calculated RC score is >1.96, it is unlikely that the change that occurred during the treatment does not reflect real change (46).”

In the citing paper

“Clinically significant change was defined as the posttreatment score falling below two standard deviations from the mean pretreatment score, i.e.M pre -2 × SD pre (Jacobson & Truax, 1991), in this study 21 points on the PSWQ-C.”

In the citing paper

“Each RCI calculation (see Table 1) indicated that a reliable change had indeed occurred at the data collection points in August, September, and December for all four measures, with only one exception: Toby’s scores on the PHLMS awareness subscale did not change reliably from June to August.”

In the citing paper

“The observed shift in mean depression scores from the moderate level to the mild level represents not only a significant reduction in depressive symptoms from pre- to post-intervention, but also a clinically significant change according to Jacobson and Truax [37] whereby post-treatment scores fall within two standard deviations of the normal population mean score [39].”

In the citing paper

“This framework is stricter than the most used method advocated by Jacobson and Truax (1991) and does not rely on the conceptual problems of p-values.”

In the citing paper

“We did not assess reliable change (Jacobson & Truax, 1991), because, due to our inclusive entry criteria, this would have necessitated post-intervention scores at or above ceiling level for several participants.”

In the citing paper

“Statistically reliable improvements in score were used to define minimal clinicallyimportant change, in the same way they are used in the national Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme. 31”

In the citing paper

“Figure 1. The equation for calculating Reliable Change Index”

In the citing paper

“is associated with a large burden of disease and generates considerable economic costs to society. 3-5”

In the citing paper

“is associated with a large burden of disease and generates considerable economic costs to society. 3-5”

In the citing paper

“As cautioned by Jacobson and Truax 21 cutoff scores can be arbitrary and may not capture all improvements (e.g., from one end of a range to another).”

In the citing paper

“In order to provide consistency in discussing clinically significant change, and as recommended by Jacobson and Truax 21 , overall improvement (shift toward mean of general population) was reported.”

In the citing paper

“Evidence of such “reliable change” is one of the 2 criteria for clinically significant change suggested by Jacobson and colleagues.24,25”

In the citing paper

“In a post-hoc analysis of EESC data sets based on the Jacobson and Truax method (Jacobson and Truax 1991), ≥99% of participants did not show emotional control impairments and method-defined, reliable change in emotional expression during LDX treatment (Katic et al. 2012).”

In the citing paper

“Deterioration was measured using the criteria for clinically significant deterioration by Jacobson and Truax (1991) in 11 studies, while 7 studies used another definition (such as moving to another symptom category or scoring a number of points lower on a depression scale).”