Are classification accuracy statistics underused in neuropsychological research?
The prevalence of classification accuracy statistics was calculated in five prominent neuropsychology journals and five leading neurology journals for the years 2000 and 2001. Only 29% of neuropsychological articles judged to be appropriate for classification accuracy statistics presented sufficient data to calculate a full range of such analyses. Moreover, classification accuracy statistics were significantly less prevalent in neuropsychology journal articles than in studies published in neurology journals during the same time period. Various indices of sensitivity and/or specificity were present in 31% of neuropsychology articles, whereas fewer than 3% reported predictive values or risk ratios. These findings indicate that classification accuracy statistics, most notably predictive values and risk ratios, are potentially underused in neuropsychology. Investigators and research consumers are encouraged to consider the applicability of classification accuracy statistics as a means of evaluating the clinical relevance of neuropsychological research findings.
Woods
Steven Paul
SP
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. spwoods@ucsd.edu
Weinborn
Michael
M
Lovejoy
David W
DW
D015706:Bibliometrics; D035843:Biomedical Research; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D018156:Journalism, Medical; D009462:Neurology / Q000145:classification / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D009484:Neuropsychology / Q000145:classification / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D012307:Risk Factors; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity