Comparison of a single case to a control or normative sample in neuropsychology: Development of a Bayesian approach

John Robertson Crawford, Paul H. Garthwaite

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

161 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Frequentist methods are available for comparison of a patient's test score ( or score difference) to a control or normative sample; these methods also provide a point estimate of the percentage of the population that would obtain a more extreme score ( or score difference) and, for some problems, an accompanying interval estimate ( i.e., confidence limits) on this percentage. In the present paper we develop a Bayesian approach to these problems. Despite the very different approaches, the Bayesian and frequentist methods yield equivalent point and interval estimates when ( a) a case's score is compared to that of a control sample, and ( b) when the raw ( i.e., unstandardized) difference between a case's scores on two tasks are compared to the differences in controls. In contrast, the two approaches differ with regard to point estimates of the abnormality of the difference between a case's standardized scores. The Bayesian method for standardized differences has the advantages that ( a) it can directly evaluate the probability that a control will obtain a more extreme difference score, ( b) it appropriately incorporates error in estimating the standard deviations of the tasks from which the patient's difference score is derived, and ( c) it provides a credible interval for the abnormality of the difference between an individual's standardized scores; this latter problem has failed to succumb to frequentist methods. Computer programs that implement the Bayesian methods are described and made available.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)343-372
Number of pages30
JournalCognitive Neuropsychology
Volume24
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007

Keywords

  • monte-carlo-simulation
  • test score differences
  • subtest scatter
  • WAIS-R
  • statistical-methods
  • dissociations
  • abnormality
  • deficit
  • index
  • power

Cite this

Comparison of a single case to a control or normative sample in neuropsychology : Development of a Bayesian approach. / Crawford, John Robertson; Garthwaite, Paul H.

In: Cognitive Neuropsychology, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2007, p. 343-372.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8c299bd3b9b34f66ab0c9ff29a7d1df2,
title = "Comparison of a single case to a control or normative sample in neuropsychology: Development of a Bayesian approach",
abstract = "Frequentist methods are available for comparison of a patient's test score ( or score difference) to a control or normative sample; these methods also provide a point estimate of the percentage of the population that would obtain a more extreme score ( or score difference) and, for some problems, an accompanying interval estimate ( i.e., confidence limits) on this percentage. In the present paper we develop a Bayesian approach to these problems. Despite the very different approaches, the Bayesian and frequentist methods yield equivalent point and interval estimates when ( a) a case's score is compared to that of a control sample, and ( b) when the raw ( i.e., unstandardized) difference between a case's scores on two tasks are compared to the differences in controls. In contrast, the two approaches differ with regard to point estimates of the abnormality of the difference between a case's standardized scores. The Bayesian method for standardized differences has the advantages that ( a) it can directly evaluate the probability that a control will obtain a more extreme difference score, ( b) it appropriately incorporates error in estimating the standard deviations of the tasks from which the patient's difference score is derived, and ( c) it provides a credible interval for the abnormality of the difference between an individual's standardized scores; this latter problem has failed to succumb to frequentist methods. Computer programs that implement the Bayesian methods are described and made available.",
keywords = "monte-carlo-simulation, test score differences, subtest scatter, WAIS-R, statistical-methods, dissociations, abnormality, deficit, index, power",
author = "Crawford, {John Robertson} and Garthwaite, {Paul H.}",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1080/02643290701290146",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "343--372",
journal = "Cognitive Neuropsychology",
issn = "0264-3294",
publisher = "Psychology Press Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of a single case to a control or normative sample in neuropsychology

T2 - Development of a Bayesian approach

AU - Crawford, John Robertson

AU - Garthwaite, Paul H.

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - Frequentist methods are available for comparison of a patient's test score ( or score difference) to a control or normative sample; these methods also provide a point estimate of the percentage of the population that would obtain a more extreme score ( or score difference) and, for some problems, an accompanying interval estimate ( i.e., confidence limits) on this percentage. In the present paper we develop a Bayesian approach to these problems. Despite the very different approaches, the Bayesian and frequentist methods yield equivalent point and interval estimates when ( a) a case's score is compared to that of a control sample, and ( b) when the raw ( i.e., unstandardized) difference between a case's scores on two tasks are compared to the differences in controls. In contrast, the two approaches differ with regard to point estimates of the abnormality of the difference between a case's standardized scores. The Bayesian method for standardized differences has the advantages that ( a) it can directly evaluate the probability that a control will obtain a more extreme difference score, ( b) it appropriately incorporates error in estimating the standard deviations of the tasks from which the patient's difference score is derived, and ( c) it provides a credible interval for the abnormality of the difference between an individual's standardized scores; this latter problem has failed to succumb to frequentist methods. Computer programs that implement the Bayesian methods are described and made available.

AB - Frequentist methods are available for comparison of a patient's test score ( or score difference) to a control or normative sample; these methods also provide a point estimate of the percentage of the population that would obtain a more extreme score ( or score difference) and, for some problems, an accompanying interval estimate ( i.e., confidence limits) on this percentage. In the present paper we develop a Bayesian approach to these problems. Despite the very different approaches, the Bayesian and frequentist methods yield equivalent point and interval estimates when ( a) a case's score is compared to that of a control sample, and ( b) when the raw ( i.e., unstandardized) difference between a case's scores on two tasks are compared to the differences in controls. In contrast, the two approaches differ with regard to point estimates of the abnormality of the difference between a case's standardized scores. The Bayesian method for standardized differences has the advantages that ( a) it can directly evaluate the probability that a control will obtain a more extreme difference score, ( b) it appropriately incorporates error in estimating the standard deviations of the tasks from which the patient's difference score is derived, and ( c) it provides a credible interval for the abnormality of the difference between an individual's standardized scores; this latter problem has failed to succumb to frequentist methods. Computer programs that implement the Bayesian methods are described and made available.

KW - monte-carlo-simulation

KW - test score differences

KW - subtest scatter

KW - WAIS-R

KW - statistical-methods

KW - dissociations

KW - abnormality

KW - deficit

KW - index

KW - power

U2 - 10.1080/02643290701290146

DO - 10.1080/02643290701290146

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 343

EP - 372

JO - Cognitive Neuropsychology

JF - Cognitive Neuropsychology

SN - 0264-3294

IS - 4

ER -