Speer D C, Greenbaum P E
Department of Aging and Mental Health, Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida, Tampa 33612-3899, USA.
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1995 Dec;63(6):1044-8. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.63.6.1044.
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.
人们对确定个体客户变化的方法重新产生了兴趣。目前，至少有4种治疗前-治疗后（前后）差异评分方法。第5种方法基于随机效应模型和多波数据，代表一种增长曲线方法，据推测，与前后方法相比，它在检测显著（p <.05）变化方面更敏感。在73名老年门诊患者的样本中，比较了这5种方法产生的变化率，每位患者在幸福感测量方面进行了3至5次评估（H. J. 杜皮，1977年）。结果表明，增长曲线方法的改善率最高（68.5%）。增长曲线方法和爱德华兹-南纳利方法（63.0%）产生的改善率显著（p <.05）高于其他3种方法，但有一个例外。
