Moving beyond dichotomies: a case for logistic regression in neuropsychological evaluation.

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Robert J Spencer, Sarah D Patrick, Michael T Ransom, Craig R Miller, Andrew C Hale
{"title":"Moving beyond dichotomies: a case for logistic regression in neuropsychological evaluation.","authors":"Robert J Spencer, Sarah D Patrick, Michael T Ransom, Craig R Miller, Andrew C Hale","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2025.2478985","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Neuropsychologists often use continuously scored measures to create dichotomous cutoff scores for making decisions. Dichotomization allows test users to employ traditional diagnostic statistics, such as sensitivity and specificity, but this approach is conceptually and statistically limited. This study uses simulated data to explore problems with dichotomizing continuous data. We critically review commonly proposed solutions and illustrate how logistic regression (LR) can overcome these limitations. We explore practical issues including homogeneity and heterogeneity in forced dichotomization and how such problems are compounded by reporting multiple cutoff scores.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using R, we simulated data for a hypothetical, normally distributed, cognitive screening test using 200 simulated participants. We set the probability of \"cognitive impairment\" at .5 and constrained the simulated screening test and impairment designation to correlate at <i>r</i> = .5. We described traditional diagnostic statistics of all cutoff scores and provided probabilities derived from descriptive observation and LR for each possible score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Receiver operating characteristic area under the curve was .78 (95% CI: .71-.84), indicating the analyses were simulating an adequately accurate test. We illustrate how interpreting from groups created by cut scores leads to misleading classifications whereby disparate scores above or below a cut score are treated similarly, adjacent scores at the cutoff are treated as categorically distinct, and how offering multiple cutoff score compounds each of these problems. Although the idea of jettisoning categories in favor of examining observed data has appeal, such approaches are ill-advised because datasets often have peculiarities that can lead to misleading conclusions. Deriving probabilities from LR uses the full continuum of data and does not involve evaluators choosing from among cutoff options.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We advocate using LR-based probability estimates instead of group-based cutoff scores when making dichotomous decisions from continuous data. These probability estimates can be directly applied to clinical and research practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2025.2478985","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Neuropsychologists often use continuously scored measures to create dichotomous cutoff scores for making decisions. Dichotomization allows test users to employ traditional diagnostic statistics, such as sensitivity and specificity, but this approach is conceptually and statistically limited. This study uses simulated data to explore problems with dichotomizing continuous data. We critically review commonly proposed solutions and illustrate how logistic regression (LR) can overcome these limitations. We explore practical issues including homogeneity and heterogeneity in forced dichotomization and how such problems are compounded by reporting multiple cutoff scores.

Method: Using R, we simulated data for a hypothetical, normally distributed, cognitive screening test using 200 simulated participants. We set the probability of "cognitive impairment" at .5 and constrained the simulated screening test and impairment designation to correlate at r = .5. We described traditional diagnostic statistics of all cutoff scores and provided probabilities derived from descriptive observation and LR for each possible score.

Results: Receiver operating characteristic area under the curve was .78 (95% CI: .71-.84), indicating the analyses were simulating an adequately accurate test. We illustrate how interpreting from groups created by cut scores leads to misleading classifications whereby disparate scores above or below a cut score are treated similarly, adjacent scores at the cutoff are treated as categorically distinct, and how offering multiple cutoff score compounds each of these problems. Although the idea of jettisoning categories in favor of examining observed data has appeal, such approaches are ill-advised because datasets often have peculiarities that can lead to misleading conclusions. Deriving probabilities from LR uses the full continuum of data and does not involve evaluators choosing from among cutoff options.

Conclusions: We advocate using LR-based probability estimates instead of group-based cutoff scores when making dichotomous decisions from continuous data. These probability estimates can be directly applied to clinical and research practice.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信