Improving the reliability of the Reliable Change Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reliable change index (RCI) is a tool for evaluating change at the individual level. It compliments standard group-level change estimates and is central to evaluating clinical significance for interventions. In principle, the RCI provides common criteria for evaluating individual change. However, current practices use sample-specific estimates to create these criteria. Because sample estimates are subject to sampling error, these criteria are also subject to sampling error and therefore differ across studies. We illustrate how current practices can lead to differing criteria for reliable change and use simulations to identify the impact of sampling error on the RCI. Excessive error in the RCI began for the average sample when N < 30, and samples only comfortably avoided the risk of excessive error when N > 100. Finally, small errors in estimating a measure’s reliability sometimes had profound effects on the RCI. Recommendations on use of the RCI are provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.284 | 0.721 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".