Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 10, 2026

Whole-brain Segmentation and Change-point Analysis of Anatomical Brain MRI—Application in Premanifest Huntington's Disease
Published on: June 9, 2018
Inconsistent Application of the Reliable Change Index in Clinical Psychology Trials Undermines Comparability of
Alexander O Crenshaw1, Ameesha MacDonald1, Kianan Carr1
1Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA.
Objective:
The reliable change index (RCI) is a valuable idiographic tool used by clinicians and researchers to evaluate whether individual clients experienced statistically detectable change on a given measure. However, numerous RCI methods exist, and the popular Jacobson and Truax (1991) method is underspecified, raising the potential for inconsistent operationalization across studies. The present study evaluated how the RCI is operationalized in psychology clinical trials and explored how RCI operationalization can influence numerical thresholds.
Methods:
We conducted a methodological scoping review of four clinical psychology journals published from 2020 to 2023 and coded the operationalization of reliable change in psychology clinical trials. We then used descriptive data from a convenience sample of published psychometric studies to illustrate the impact of operationalization on reliable change thresholds.
Results:
Among 226 clinical trials, 29 (13%) formally assessed reliable change. We identified at least seven distinct operationalizations of the RCI, including five distinct operationalizations of the same formula from Jacobson and Truax (1991). In illustrative examples, differences in the specific operationalization of this formula produced absolute RCI threshold discrepancies as large as 79%, or 1.02 standard deviation units.
Conclusion:
Operationalization of reliable change is highly inconsistent in clinical trials, which can harm comparability of results across studies. We recommend improved reporting and that clinical trials compute two RCIs. First, the Jacobson & Truax method-using the baseline standard deviation and internal consistency-supports clinician use and improves between-study comparability, though other sources of non-comparability remain. Second, one of several modern methods provides improved within-study RCI evaluation.
Related Concept Videos
Regression Toward the Mean
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation
The hypothesis testing for the claim of population standard deviation (or variance) requires the data and samples to be random and unbiased. The population distribution also must be normal. There is no specific requirement on the sample size as the estimation is based on the chi-square distribution.
As a first step, the hypothesis (null and alternative) concerning the claim about...
