Dataset Information

Application of Different Standard Error Estimates in Reliable Change Methods.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study attempted to clarify the applicability of standard error (SE) terms in clinical research when examining the impact of short-term practice effects on cognitive performance via reliable change methodology.

Method

This study compared McSweeney's SE of the estimate (SEest) to Crawford and Howell's SE for prediction of the regression (SEpred) using a developmental sample of 167 participants with either normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) assessed twice over 1 week. One-week practice effects in older adults: Tools for assessing cognitive change. Using these SEs, previously published standardized regression-based (SRB) reliable change prediction equations were then applied to an independent sample of 143 participants with MCI.

Results

This clinical developmental sample yielded nearly identical SE values (e.g., 3.697 vs. 3.719 for HVLT-R Total Recall SEest and SEpred, respectively), and the resultant SRB-based discrepancy z scores were comparable and strongly correlated (r = 1.0, p < .001). Consequently, observed follow-up scores for our sample with MCI were consistently below expectation compared to predictions based on Duff's SRB algorithms.

Conclusions

These results appear to replicate and extend previous work showing that the calculation of the SEest and SEpred from a clinical sample of cognitively intact and MCI participants yields similar values and can be incorporated into SRB reliable change statistics with comparable results. As a result, neuropsychologists utilizing reliable change methods in research investigation (or clinical practice) should carefully balance mathematical accuracy and ease of use, among other factors, when determining which SE metric to use.

SUBMITTER: Hammers DB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8060987 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Camera traps are used increasingly to estimate population density for elusive and difficult to observe species. A standard practice for mammalian surveys is to place cameras on roads, trails, and paths to maximize detections and/or increase efficiency in the field. However, for many species it is unclear whether track-based camera surveys provide reliable estimates of population density.Understanding how the spatial arrangement of camera traps affects population density estimates is of key interest to contemporary conservationists and managers given the rapid increase in camera-based wildlife surveys.We evaluated the effect of camera-trap placement, using several survey designs, on density estimates of a widespread mesopredator, the red fox Vulpes vulpes, over a two-year period in a semi-arid conservation reserve in south-eastern Australia. Further, we used the certainty in the identity and whereabouts of individuals (via GPS collars) to assess how resighting rates of marked foxes affect density estimates using maximum likelihood spatially explicit mark-resight methods.Fox detection rates were much higher at cameras placed on tracks compared with off-track cameras, yet in the majority of sessions, camera placement had relatively little effect on point estimates of density. However, for each survey design, the precision of density estimates varied considerably across sessions, influenced heavily by the absolute number of marked foxes detected, the number of times marked foxes was resighted, and the number of detection events of unmarked foxes.Our research demonstrates that the precision of population density estimates using spatially explicit mark-resight models is sensitive to resighting rates of identifiable individuals. Nonetheless, camera surveys based either on- or off-track can provide reliable estimates of population density using spatially explicit mark-resight models. This underscores the importance of incorporating information on the spatial behavior of the subject species when planning camera-trap surveys.

Project description:Motor learning studies face the challenge of differentiating between real changes in performance and random measurement error. While the traditional p-value-based analyses of difference (e.g., t-tests, ANOVAs) provide information on the statistical significance of a reported change in performance scores, they do not inform as to the likely cause or origin of that change, that is, the contribution of both real modifications in performance and random measurement error to the reported change. One way of differentiating between real change and random measurement error is through the utilization of the statistics of standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC). SEM is estimated from the standard deviation of a sample of scores at baseline and a test-retest reliability index of the measurement instrument or test employed. MDC, in turn, is estimated from SEM and a degree of confidence, usually 95%. The MDC value might be regarded as the minimum amount of change that needs to be observed for it to be considered a real change, or a change to which the contribution of real modifications in performance is likely to be greater than that of random measurement error. A computer-based motor task was designed to illustrate the applicability of SEM and MDC to motor learning research. Two studies were conducted with healthy participants. Study 1 assessed the test-retest reliability of the task and Study 2 consisted in a typical motor learning study, where participants practiced the task for five consecutive days. In Study 2, the data were analyzed with a traditional p-value-based analysis of difference (ANOVA) and also with SEM and MDC. The findings showed good test-retest reliability for the task and that the p-value-based analysis alone identified statistically significant improvements in performance over time even when the observed changes could in fact have been smaller than the MDC and thereby caused mostly by random measurement error, as opposed to by learning. We suggest therefore that motor learning studies could complement their p-value-based analyses of difference with statistics such as SEM and MDC in order to inform as to the likely cause or origin of any reported changes in performance.