The correlation between baseline score and post-intervention score, and its implications for statistical analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: When using a continuous outcome measure in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), the baseline score should be measured in addition to the post-intervention score, and it should be analysed using the appropriate statistical analysis. METHODS: We derive the correlation between the change score and baseline score and show that there is always a correlation (usually negative) between the change score and baseline score. We discuss the following correlations and provide the mathematical derivations in the Appendix: Correlation between change score and baseline score Correlation between change score and post score Correlation between change score and average score. The setting here is a parallel, two-arm RCT, but the method discussed in this paper is applicable for any studies or trials that have a continuous outcome measure; it is not restricted to RCTs. RESULTS: We show that using the change score as the outcome measure does not address the problem of regression to the mean, nor does it take account of the baseline imbalance. Whether the outcome is change score or post score, one should always adjust for baseline using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); otherwise, the estimated treat effect may be biased. We show that these correlations also apply when comparing two measurement methods using Bland-Altman plots. CONCLUSIONS: The correlation between baseline and post-intervention scores can be derived using the variance sum law. We can then use the derived correlation to calculate the required sample size in the design stage. Baseline imbalance may occur in RCTs, and ANCOVA should be used to adjust for baseline in the analysis stage.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
ANCOVA provides more statistical power by assessing the difference in post-test means while accounting for pretest values.
“By assessing the difference in post-test means while accounting for pretest values, ANCOVA provides more statistical power.72 73”
From Acceptance and commitment therapy for mild traumatic brain injury (ACTion-mTBI): a quasiexperimental feasibility study (2025) · cites this paper as [72]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 15 · Cited by 178
- Authors
- Clifton, L., & Clifton, D. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Clifton, Lei
- Venue
- Trials
- Published
- 2019-01-11
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-43
- ISSN
- 1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6330413
- OpenAlex
- W2914567765
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 11.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/P009824/1, EP/N020774/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Keywords
- change scores, regression to the mean, baseline imbalance, covariance analysis, randomized controlled trials, sample size determination, Bland-Altman plot, measurement method comparison, treatment effect bias
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Research Design, Models, Statistical, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Endpoint Determination
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