Photo from wikipedia
In the article by Bryce et al. (2018) incorrect standard deviations were used when calculating the reliable change indices presented in this article. While the correct standard deviation (SD) was… Click to show full abstract
In the article by Bryce et al. (2018) incorrect standard deviations were used when calculating the reliable change indices presented in this article. While the correct standard deviation (SD) was used in calculating the Matrics Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) composite reliable change value, an error was made in using cognitive domain SDs from an incorrect domain (i.e., speed SD used for attention domain, etc.) for the domain reliable change values. The article also contains two minor manual entry errors for two participants’ end cognition score. The authors have rechecked the data and re-run all analyses using the corrected data. The interpretation of the data does not change. This remains correct. The incorrect and correct text are as follows: Page 549, Abstract, line 8 under Results: “Favoring CR (p= .028)” should read “Favoring CR (p= .027)” Page 549, Abstract, line 9 under Results: “End-group, 17 (77%)” should read “End-group 13 (59.1%)” Page 554, under Results: Para 1, line 3: “group x time interaction (p= .028)” should read “group x time interaction (p= .027)” Para 2, line 2: “both end of group (p= .008)” should read “both end of group (p= .005)” Para 2, line 5: “3-month follow-up (p= .20)” should read “3-month follow-up (p= .43)” Page 554, under Results, Rates of Reliable Cognitive Improvement and Effect Size: