超越二分法:逻辑回归在神经心理学评估中的案例。

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":"超越二分法:逻辑回归在神经心理学评估中的案例。","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":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"2025-02-01\",\"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\":\"2025/3/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","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":"2025/3/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:神经心理学家经常使用连续得分的措施,以创建二分的分界点作出决定。二分法允许测试用户使用传统的诊断统计,比如灵敏度和特异性,但是这种方法在概念上和统计上是有限的。本研究利用模拟数据探讨连续数据二分类的问题。我们批判性地回顾了通常提出的解决方案,并说明了逻辑回归(LR)如何克服这些限制。我们探讨了实际问题,包括强制二分类中的同质性和异质性,以及这些问题如何通过报告多个截止分数而复杂化。方法:使用R,我们模拟了一个假设的、正态分布的、有200个模拟参与者的认知筛选测试的数据。我们将“认知障碍”的概率设置为0.5,并将模拟筛选测试和障碍指定约束为r = 0.5。我们描述了所有截止分数的传统诊断统计数据,并提供了每个可能分数的描述性观察和LR的概率。结果:曲线下的受试者工作特征面积为0.78 (95% CI: 0.71 - 0.84),表明分析模拟了一个足够准确的测试。我们说明了如何解释由分数线创建的组导致误导性分类,即高于或低于分数线的不同分数线被类似地对待,在分数线附近的相邻分数线被视为绝对不同,以及如何提供多个分数线使这些问题复杂化。尽管抛弃分类以检查观察到的数据的想法很有吸引力,但这种方法是不明智的,因为数据集通常具有可能导致误导性结论的特性。从LR中获得概率使用了完整的连续数据,而不涉及评估者从截止选项中进行选择。结论:在对连续数据进行二分类决策时,我们提倡使用基于lr的概率估计,而不是基于组的截止分数。这些概率估计可以直接应用于临床和研究实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Moving beyond dichotomies: a case for logistic regression in neuropsychological evaluation.

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信