Cited by 60

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methods of testing for a deficit in single-case studies: Evaluation of statistical power by Monte Carlo simulation

Crawford, John R., Garthwaite, Paul H.·2006·Cognitive Neuropsychology

Abstract

Testing for the presence of a deficit by comparing a case to controls is a fundamental feature of many neuropsychological single-case studies. Monte Carlo simulation was employed to study the statistical power of two competing approaches to this task. The power to detect a large deficit was low to moderate for a method proposed by Crawford and Howell (1998; ranging from 44% to 63%) but was extremely low for a method proposed by Mycroft, Mitchell, and Kay (2002; ranging from 1% to 13%). The effects of departures from normality were examined, as was the effect of varying degrees of measurement error in the scores of controls and the single case. Measurement error produced a moderate reduction in power when present in both controls and the case; the effect of differentially greater measurement error for the single case depended on the initial level of power. When Mycroft et al.'s method was used to test for the presence of a classical dissociation, it produced very high Type I error rates (ranging from 20.7% to 49.3%); in contrast, the rates for criteria proposed by Crawford and Garthwaite (2005b) were low (ranging from 1.3% to 6.7%). The broader implications of these results for single-case research are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02643290500538372

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Based on the size of the control group and the calculations presented by Crawford and Garthwaite (2006), the statistical power to detect effects greater than 2 SDs from the mean was between 0.50 and 0.60.

    “Based on the size of the control group and the calculations presented by Crawford and Garthwaite (2006), we estimate that our statistical power to detect effects greater than 2 SDs from the mean was between 0.50 and 0.60.”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. 10.1111/1467-9868.00194 · DOI
  2. 10.1111/1467-9868.00391 · DOI
  3. 10.1093/biomet/83.4.715 · DOI
  4. 10.1093/brain/awh108 · DOI
  5. 10.1080/02643290342000258 · DOI
  6. 10.1214/aoms/1177706645 · DOI
  7. Burt C., 1963, British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 16, 175, 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1963.tb00208.x · DOI
  8. Capitani E., 2000, Handbook of neuropsychology, 1, 53
  9. 10.1016/0278-2626(86)90061-8 · DOI
  10. 10.1080/02643298808253271 · DOI
  11. Coltheart M., 2001, The handbook of cognitive neuropsychology, 3
  12. Crawford J. R., 1992, A handbook of neuropsychological assessment, 21
  13. Crawford J. R., 2004, Clinical neuropsychology: A practical guide to assessment and management for clinicians, 121
  14. 10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00224-X · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1037/0894-4105.19.5.664 · DOI
  16. 10.1037/0894-4105.19.3.318 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.06.001 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70117-5 · DOI
  19. 10.1080/02643290342000276 · DOI
  20. Crawford J. R., 1998, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 482, 10.1076/clin.12.4.482.7241 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1017/S0144686X00002610 · DOI
  22. 10.1037/1082-989X.2.3.292 · DOI
  23. Ellis A. W., 1996, Human cognitive neuropsychology: A textbook with readings
  24. 10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00047-3 · DOI
  25. Forti S., 2004, Journal of General Psychology, 131, 379
  26. 10.1093/biomet/91.4.987 · DOI
  27. 10.1080/02643290342000582 · DOI
  28. 10.2307/2290063 · DOI
  29. Laws K. R., 2005, specific in Alzheimer's disease? Cortex, 41, 452
  30. Lezak M. D., 1995, Neuropsychological assessment
  31. 10.1037/0278-7393.19.3.718 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/S0028-3932(03)00079-4 · DOI
  33. 10.1162/089892903770007371 · DOI
  34. 10.1080/02643290342000285 · DOI
  35. 10.1080/02643290143000150 · DOI
  36. 10.2307/1267101 · DOI
  37. 10.1136/jnnp.74.2.253 · DOI
  38. Press W. H., 1989, Numerical recipes in Pascal
  39. 10.1080/02643290442000239 · DOI
  40. 10.1162/0898929053279496 · DOI
  41. 10.1080/13594320500166381 · DOI
  42. 10.1038/nn1273 · DOI
  43. 10.1080/01688637908414450 · DOI
  44. 10.1017/CBO9780511526817 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Sokal R. R., 1995, Biometry
  46. Vallar G., 2000, Handbook of neuropsychology, 1, 53

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Crawford, J. R., & Garthwaite, P. H.
Venue
Cognitive Neuropsychology
Published
2006-09
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
877-904
ISSN
  • 0264-3294
  • 1464-0627
Cited by
60
References
1
Language
en

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