The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Five methods for computing significant individual client change and improvement rates: Support for an individual growth curve approach
Abstract
Interest has been renewed in methods for determining individual client change. Currently, there are at least 4 pretreatment-posttreatment (pre-post) difference score methods. A 5th method, based on a random effects model and multiwave data, represents a growth curve approach and was hypothesized to be more sensitive to detecting significant (p < .05) change than the pre-post methods. The change rates produced by the 5 methods were compared in a sample of 73 older outpatients with 3 to 5 assessments per client on a measure of well-being (H. J. Dupuy, 1977). Results indicated that the growth curve approach improvement rate was the highest (68.5%). The growth curve and the Edwards-Nunnally (63.0%) methods produced significantly (p < .05) higher improvement rates than the other 3 methods, with 1 exception.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This is a recommended method to ensure that the difference in scores is not simply due to measurement error [38].”
From A pilot evaluation of a smartphone application for workplace depression (2020) · cites this paper as [38]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life
Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00044-1 · Cited by 1,388
Schwartz, C. E., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (1999) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00047-7 · Cited by 874
Patient-focused research: Using patient outcome data to enhance treatment effects.
Lambert, M. J., Hansen, N. B., & Finch, A. E. (2001) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.69.2.159 · Cited by 602
Beauchaine, T. P., Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, M. J. (2005) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.73.3.371 · Cited by 454
Tracking neuropsychological recovery following concussion in sport
Iverson, G. L., Brooks, B. L., Collins, M. W., & Lovell, M. R. (2006) · Brain Injury · doi:10.1080/02699050500487910 · Cited by 305
Metadata
- Authors
- Speer, D. C., & Greenbaum, P. E.
- Affiliations
- University of South Florida (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
- Published
- 1995
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1044-1048
- ISSN
- 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2117
- OpenAlex
- W1975693163
- Cited by
- 216
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 4.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2007-12-01)
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Keywords
- growth curve analysis, random effects models, well-being, treatment outcome assessment
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Assessment, Personality Development, Psychometrics, Psychotherapy, Quality of Life, Models, Statistical, Treatment Outcome
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
