CHANGE SCORES AS DEPENDENT VARIABLES IN REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Change scores have been widely criticized for their purported unreliability and for their sensitivity to regression toward the mean. These objections are shown to be unfounded under a plausible regression model for the nonequivalent control group design. This model leads to inferences that are intuitively correct, as judged by changes in means over time, while the conventional model leads to inferences that are intuitively false. Moreover, the conventional model implies that regression toward the mean within groups leads to regression toward the mean between groups, an implausible result for naturally occurring groups. Nevertheless, the conventional model may be more appropriate when there is a true causal effect of the pretest on the posttest, or when cases are assigned to groups on the basis of their pretest scores.

[1]  D. Campbell,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENT Al DESIGNS FOR RESEARCH , 2012 .

[2]  F. Lord A paradox in the interpretation of group comparisons. , 1967, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  Frederic M. Lord,et al.  Statistical adjustments when comparing preexisting groups. , 1969 .

[4]  George W. Bohrnstedt,et al.  Observations on the Measurement of Change , 1969 .

[5]  R. Linn,et al.  A general linear model for studying growth. , 1970 .

[6]  L. Cronbach,et al.  How we should measure "change": Or should we? , 1970 .

[7]  J. Arthur Woodward,et al.  Unreliability of difference scores: A paradox for measurement of change. , 1975 .

[8]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  A quasi-experimental approach to assessing treatment effects in the nonequivalent control group design. , 1975 .

[9]  D. Rubin Assignment to Treatment Group on the Basis of a Covariate , 1976 .

[10]  Steven H. Cohen,et al.  A Reexamination of Selection and Growth Processes in the Nonequivalent Control Group Design , 1980 .

[11]  P. Allison Estimation and Testing for a Markov Model of Reinforcement , 1980 .

[12]  Scott E. Maxwell,et al.  Change Scores—Necessarily Anathema? , 1981 .

[13]  J. S. Long,et al.  Cumulative Advantage and Inequality in Science , 1982 .

[14]  Fred Phillips,et al.  Linear Panel Analysis: Models of Quantitative Change. , 1982 .

[15]  D. Rubin,et al.  ON LORD'S PARADOX , 1982 .

[16]  P. Preece The Fan-Spread Hypothesis and the Adjustment for Initial Differences between Groups in Uncontrolled Studies , 1982 .

[17]  D. W. Zimmerman,et al.  GAIN SCORES IN RESEARCH CAN BE HIGHLY RELIABLE , 1982 .

[18]  Andrew C. Porter,et al.  Analyzing Quasi-Experiments: Some Implications of Assuming Continuous Growth Models , 1983 .

[19]  Ronald C. Kessler,et al.  Linear Panel Analysis: Models of Quantitative Change. , 1984 .

[20]  Jeffrey K. Liker,et al.  Panel Data and Models of Change: A Comparison of First Difference and Conventional Two-Wave Models , 1985 .

[21]  J. Heckman,et al.  Longitudinal Analysis of Labor Market Data: Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions , 1985 .

[22]  K. K. Sharma,et al.  Optimum Reliability of Gain Scores. , 1986 .

[23]  李幼升,et al.  Ph , 1989 .