方法对比

	Clinical Significance Analysis	Reliable Change Index
领域	Social Work	Social Work
方法族	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
起源年份	1991	1991
提出者	Neil S. Jacobson & Paula Truax	Neil S. Jacobson & Paula Truax
类型	Two-part classification of whether individual change is both reliable and meaningful	Statistical index of whether an individual client's change exceeds measurement error
开创性文献	Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12–19.	Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12–19.
别名	Clinical Significance, Jacobson-Truax Method, Clinically Significant Change, Recovery Classification	RCI, Reliable Change Index (Jacobson-Truax), Jacobson-Truax Reliable Change, Reliable Change Criterion
相关	4	4
摘要	Clinical significance analysis is a method for deciding whether an individual client's change after treatment is not only statistically reliable but also meaningful in real-world terms — specifically, whether the client has moved out of the dysfunctional range and into the range typical of a functional or non-clinical population. Formalized by Neil Jacobson and Paula Truax in 1991, it combines a reliable-change criterion with a clinical cutoff to sort each client into categories such as recovered, improved, unchanged, or deteriorated, complementing group-level statistics that say nothing about individual benefit.	The Reliable Change Index (RCI) is a statistic that tells whether the change in an individual client's score on a measure, from before to after an intervention, is large enough that it is unlikely to be an artifact of the instrument's measurement error. Introduced by Neil Jacobson and Paula Truax in 1991 as one half of their two-part definition of clinically significant change, it converts a pre-post difference into a standardized value and compares it against a critical cutoff, typically 1.96, so that practitioners and researchers can classify each client as reliably improved, unchanged, or reliably deteriorated.