University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2006 Sep;23(6):877-904. doi: 10.1080/02643290500538372.
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.
通过将病例与对照进行比较来检测是否存在缺陷,是许多神经心理学个案研究的基本特征。采用蒙特卡罗模拟方法研究了两种竞争方法对此任务的统计功效。克劳福德和豪厄尔(1998 年)提出的方法检测大缺陷的功效较低(范围为 44%至 63%),但迈克罗夫特、米切尔和凯(2002 年)提出的方法的功效极低(范围为 1%至 13%)。还研究了偏离正态性的影响,以及控制组和单一病例的分数中存在不同程度测量误差的影响。当控制组和病例中都存在测量误差时,测量误差会适度降低功效;对于单一病例,测量误差的差异更大,其效果取决于初始功效水平。当使用迈克罗夫特等人的方法来检测是否存在经典分离时,它会产生非常高的Ⅰ型错误率(范围为 20.7%至 49.3%);相比之下,克劳福德和加思韦特(2005b)提出的标准的错误率较低(范围为 1.3%至 6.7%)。讨论了这些结果对个案研究的更广泛影响。