IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/psycho/v83y2018i3d10.1007_s11336-018-9611-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Review of Issues About Classical Change Scores: A Multilevel Modeling Perspective on Some Enduring Beliefs

Author

Listed:
  • Zhengguo Gu

    (Tilburg University)

  • Wilco H. M. Emons

    (Tilburg University)

  • Klaas Sijtsma

    (Tilburg University)

Abstract

Change scores obtained in pretest–posttest designs are important for evaluating treatment effectiveness and for assessing change of individual test scores in psychological research. However, over the years the use of change scores has raised much controversy. In this article, from a multilevel perspective, we provide a structured treatise on several persistent negative beliefs about change scores and show that these beliefs originated from the confounding of the effects of within-person change on change-score reliability and between-person change differences. We argue that psychometric properties of change scores, such as reliability and measurement precision, should be treated at suitable levels within a multilevel framework. We show that, if examined at the suitable levels with such a framework, the negative beliefs about change scores can be renounced convincingly. Finally, we summarize the conclusions about change scores to dispel the myths and to promote the potential and practical usefulness of change scores.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhengguo Gu & Wilco H. M. Emons & Klaas Sijtsma, 2018. "Review of Issues About Classical Change Scores: A Multilevel Modeling Perspective on Some Enduring Beliefs," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(3), pages 674-695, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:83:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11336-018-9611-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11336-018-9611-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11336-018-9611-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11336-018-9611-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Embretson, 1991. "A multidimensional latent trait model for measuring learning and change," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 56(3), pages 495-515, September.
    2. William Meredith & John Tisak, 1990. "Latent curve analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 107-122, March.
    3. Glenn Parker & Matthew Dabros, 2012. "Last-period problems in legislatures," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 789-806, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhengguo Gu & Wilco H. M. Emons & Klaas Sijtsma, 2021. "Estimating Difference-Score Reliability in Pretest–Posttest Settings," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 46(5), pages 592-610, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chun Wang & Steven W. Nydick, 2020. "On Longitudinal Item Response Theory Models: A Didactic," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 45(3), pages 339-368, June.
    2. Li Cai & Carrie R. Houts, 2021. "Longitudinal Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials: Applications of Multilevel and Multidimensional Item Response Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(3), pages 754-777, September.
    3. Marco Guerra & Francesca Bassi & José G. Dias, 2020. "A Multiple-Indicator Latent Growth Mixture Model to Track Courses with Low-Quality Teaching," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 147(2), pages 361-381, January.
    4. Johan Oud & Manuel Voelkle, 2014. "Do missing values exist? Incomplete data handling in cross-national longitudinal studies by means of continuous time modeling," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3271-3288, November.
    5. Yih-Ing Hser & Haikang Shen & Chih-Ping Chou & Stephen C. Messer & M. Douglas Anglin, 2001. "Analytic Approaches for Assessing Long-Term Treatment Effects," Evaluation Review, , vol. 25(2), pages 233-262, April.
    6. Stephen Toit & Robert Cudeck, 2009. "Estimation of the Nonlinear Random Coefficient Model when Some Random Effects Are Separable," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 65-82, March.
    7. Roe, R.A., 2005. "Studying time in organizational behavior," Research Memorandum 046, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    8. Susan Embretson, 1999. "Generating items during testing: Psychometric issues and models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 407-433, December.
    9. Ellen L. Hamaker, 2005. "Conditions for the Equivalence of the Autoregressive Latent Trajectory Model and a Latent Growth Curve Model With Autoregressive Disturbances," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 33(3), pages 404-416, February.
    10. Laura Castro-Schilo & Barbara L. Fredrickson & Dan Mungas, 2019. "Association of Positive Affect with Cognitive Health and Decline for Elder Mexican Americans," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(8), pages 2385-2400, December.
    11. Daniel S. Nagin & Richard E. Tremblay, 2005. "What Has Been Learned from Group-Based Trajectory Modeling? Examples from Physical Aggression and Other Problem Behaviors," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 602(1), pages 82-117, November.
    12. Eldad Davidov & Stefan Thörner & Peter Schmidt & Stefanie Gosen & Carina Wolf, 2011. "Level and change of group-focused enmity in Germany: unconditional and conditional latent growth curve models with four panel waves," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 95(4), pages 481-500, December.
    13. Pietro Lovaglio & Mario Mezzanzanica, 2013. "Classification of longitudinal career paths," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 989-1008, February.
    14. Shu Xu & Shelley A. Blozis, 2011. "Sensitivity Analysis of Mixed Models for Incomplete Longitudinal Data," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 36(2), pages 237-256, April.
    15. Jeffrey Rouder & Jordan Province & Richard Morey & Pablo Gomez & Andrew Heathcote, 2015. "The Lognormal Race: A Cognitive-Process Model of Choice and Latency with Desirable Psychometric Properties," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 491-513, June.
    16. John McArdle, 2011. "Longitudinal dynamic analyses of cognition in the health and retirement study panel," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 95(4), pages 453-480, December.
    17. Kim, Dong Ha & Um, Myung-Yong, 2018. "The relationships among family income, parental depression, and adolescent aggression in South Korea: A latent growth mediation model," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 168-175.
    18. Jost Reinecke & Daniel Seddig, 2011. "Growth mixture models in longitudinal research," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 95(4), pages 415-434, December.
    19. Ke-Hai Yuan & Peter Bentler, 2006. "Mean Comparison: Manifest Variable Versus Latent Variable," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 139-159, March.
    20. Shelley A. Blozis & Jeffrey R. Harring, 2017. "Understanding Individual-level Change Through the Basis Functions of a Latent Curve Model," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(4), pages 793-820, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:83:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11336-018-9611-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.