Between-group minimally important change versus individual treatment responders

Authors:
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Purpose Estimates of the minimally important change (MIC) can be used to evaluate whether group-level differences are large enough to be important. But responders to treatment have been based upon group-level MIC thresholds, resulting in inaccurate classification of change over time. This article reviews options and provides suggestions about individual-level statistics to assess whether individuals have improved, stayed the same, or declined. Methods Review of MIC estimation and an example of misapplication of MIC group-level estimates to assess individual change. Secondary data analysis to show how perceptions about meaningful change can be used along with significance of individual change. Results MIC thresholds yield over-optimistic conclusions about responders to treatment because they classify those who have not changed as responders. Conclusions Future studies need to evaluate the significance of individual change using appropriate individual-level statistics such as the reliable change index or the equivalent coefficient of repeatability. Supplementing individual statistical significance with retrospective assessments of change is desirable.
Funding Information
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH/NIA Grant P30-AG021684.)
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH/NIA Grant P30-AG059988)

This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit: