Inferential methods for comparing a single case with a control sample: Modified t-tests versus Mycroft' et al.'s (2002) modified ANOVA

John Robertson Crawford, P. H. Garthwaite, D. C. Howell, Colin Douglas Gray

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Mycroft, Mitchell, and Kay (2002) have criticised existing inferential methods (e.g., Crawford & Howell, 1998) for comparing a single case with a control sample and propose that such comparisons be made using a modified ANOVA. It is argued that the assumptions made by Mycroft et al. are questionable and, even if they held, would not invalidate Crawford and Howell's method. Crawford and Howell's null hypothesis is that the patient is an observation from the control population whereas Mycroft et al.'s null hypothesis is that the control population and a notional population of patients have a common mean. Even if one accepts Mycroft et al.'s conceptualisation, their arguments only have force if (1) the variance of a notional population of patients was larger than that of the control population, and (2) patients with impaired performance were balanced exactly by patients whose performance had been enhanced relative to controls. Furthermore, the modified ANOVA would have the undesirable consequence of reducing statistical power unnecessarily and it requires users to provide some estimate of the variance of a hypothetical population.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)750-755
Number of pages5
JournalCognitive Neuropsychology
Volume21
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2004

Keywords

  • SCORE DIFFERENCES
  • NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
  • ABNORMALITY

Cite this

Inferential methods for comparing a single case with a control sample: Modified t-tests versus Mycroft' et al.'s (2002) modified ANOVA. / Crawford, John Robertson; Garthwaite, P. H.; Howell, D. C.; Gray, Colin Douglas.

In: Cognitive Neuropsychology, Vol. 21, 2004, p. 750-755.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fec86b9d6b0b4338b72bc46341a09218,
title = "Inferential methods for comparing a single case with a control sample: Modified t-tests versus Mycroft' et al.'s (2002) modified ANOVA",
abstract = "Mycroft, Mitchell, and Kay (2002) have criticised existing inferential methods (e.g., Crawford & Howell, 1998) for comparing a single case with a control sample and propose that such comparisons be made using a modified ANOVA. It is argued that the assumptions made by Mycroft et al. are questionable and, even if they held, would not invalidate Crawford and Howell's method. Crawford and Howell's null hypothesis is that the patient is an observation from the control population whereas Mycroft et al.'s null hypothesis is that the control population and a notional population of patients have a common mean. Even if one accepts Mycroft et al.'s conceptualisation, their arguments only have force if (1) the variance of a notional population of patients was larger than that of the control population, and (2) patients with impaired performance were balanced exactly by patients whose performance had been enhanced relative to controls. Furthermore, the modified ANOVA would have the undesirable consequence of reducing statistical power unnecessarily and it requires users to provide some estimate of the variance of a hypothetical population.",
keywords = "SCORE DIFFERENCES, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, ABNORMALITY",
author = "Crawford, {John Robertson} and Garthwaite, {P. H.} and Howell, {D. C.} and Gray, {Colin Douglas}",
year = "2004",
doi = "10.1080/02643290342000276",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "750--755",
journal = "Cognitive Neuropsychology",
issn = "0264-3294",
publisher = "Psychology Press Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Inferential methods for comparing a single case with a control sample: Modified t-tests versus Mycroft' et al.'s (2002) modified ANOVA

AU - Crawford, John Robertson

AU - Garthwaite, P. H.

AU - Howell, D. C.

AU - Gray, Colin Douglas

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - Mycroft, Mitchell, and Kay (2002) have criticised existing inferential methods (e.g., Crawford & Howell, 1998) for comparing a single case with a control sample and propose that such comparisons be made using a modified ANOVA. It is argued that the assumptions made by Mycroft et al. are questionable and, even if they held, would not invalidate Crawford and Howell's method. Crawford and Howell's null hypothesis is that the patient is an observation from the control population whereas Mycroft et al.'s null hypothesis is that the control population and a notional population of patients have a common mean. Even if one accepts Mycroft et al.'s conceptualisation, their arguments only have force if (1) the variance of a notional population of patients was larger than that of the control population, and (2) patients with impaired performance were balanced exactly by patients whose performance had been enhanced relative to controls. Furthermore, the modified ANOVA would have the undesirable consequence of reducing statistical power unnecessarily and it requires users to provide some estimate of the variance of a hypothetical population.

AB - Mycroft, Mitchell, and Kay (2002) have criticised existing inferential methods (e.g., Crawford & Howell, 1998) for comparing a single case with a control sample and propose that such comparisons be made using a modified ANOVA. It is argued that the assumptions made by Mycroft et al. are questionable and, even if they held, would not invalidate Crawford and Howell's method. Crawford and Howell's null hypothesis is that the patient is an observation from the control population whereas Mycroft et al.'s null hypothesis is that the control population and a notional population of patients have a common mean. Even if one accepts Mycroft et al.'s conceptualisation, their arguments only have force if (1) the variance of a notional population of patients was larger than that of the control population, and (2) patients with impaired performance were balanced exactly by patients whose performance had been enhanced relative to controls. Furthermore, the modified ANOVA would have the undesirable consequence of reducing statistical power unnecessarily and it requires users to provide some estimate of the variance of a hypothetical population.

KW - SCORE DIFFERENCES

KW - NEUROPSYCHOLOGY

KW - ABNORMALITY

U2 - 10.1080/02643290342000276

DO - 10.1080/02643290342000276

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 750

EP - 755

JO - Cognitive Neuropsychology

JF - Cognitive Neuropsychology

SN - 0264-3294

ER -