Maassen G H
Department of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2000 Oct;22(5):622-32. doi: 10.1076/1380-3395(200010)22:5;1-9;FT622.
In this article, several salient measures for determining reliable change are scrutinized. The classic null hypothesis method is compared with more recent procedures based on interval estimation of the true change, including Kelley's formula. The latter category of methods are shown to entail serious drawbacks. If Kelley's formula is expanded to a null hypothesis method (including a correct treatment of the stochastic character of the sample information), the classic method reveals itself as a large sample approximation. We conclude that the classic method is undeservedly regarded inferior by the authors who proposed new indices.
在本文中，对几种用于确定可靠变化的显著方法进行了详细审查。将经典的零假设方法与基于真实变化区间估计的更新方法进行了比较，包括凯利公式。结果表明，后一类方法存在严重缺陷。如果将凯利公式扩展为一种零假设方法（包括对样本信息随机特性的正确处理），经典方法就会显示为一种大样本近似。我们得出结论，提出新指标的作者们无端地认为经典方法较差。
