External validation of change formulae in neuropsychology with neuroimaging biomarkers: A methodological recommendation and preliminary clinical data.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Within neuropsychology, a number of mathematical formulae (e.g. reliable change index, standardized regression based) have been used to determine if change across time has reliably occurred. When these formulae have been compared, they often produce different results, but 'different' results do not necessarily indicate which formulae are 'best.' The current study sought to further our understanding of change formulae by comparing them to clinically relevant external criteria (amyloid deposition and hippocampal volume). METHOD: In a sample of 25 older adults with varying levels of cognitive intactness, participants were tested twice across one week with a brief cognitive battery. Seven different change scores were calculated for each participant. An amyloid PET scan (to get a composite of amyloid deposition) and an MRI (to get hippocampal volume) were also obtained. RESULTS: Deviation-based change formulae (e.g. simple discrepancy score, reliable change index with or without correction for practice effects) were all identical in their relationship to the two neuroimaging biomarkers, and all were non-significant. Conversely, regression-based change formulae (e.g. simple and complex indices) showed stronger relationships to amyloid deposition and hippocampal volume. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the need for external validation of the various change formulae used by neuropsychologists in clinical settings and research projects. The findings also preliminarily suggest that regression-based change formulae may be more relevant than deviation-based change formulae in this context.