Abstract:Context: The Concussion Clinical Profile Screening Tool (CP Screen) self-report concussion symptom inventory that is often administered at weekly intervals. However, 1-week reliable change indices (RCI) for clinical cutoffs and the test-retest reliability of the CP Screen is unknown. Objective: Document RCI cutoff scores and 1-week test-retest reliability for each profile and modifier of the CP Screen for males and females. Design: Case Series. Setting: A large US university. Patients or Other Participants: 173 healthy college students. Main outcome Measure(s): Participants completed two administrations of the CP Screen 7 days apart; CP Screen items yield five clinical profiles and two modifiers. Spearman rho coefficients (rs), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) single measures and Unbiased Estimates of Reliability (UER) were used to assess test-retest reliability. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests assessed differences across time. RCI values and cutoff scores are provided at 90%/95% confidence intervals (CI). All analyses were performed for the total sample and separately for males and females. Results: RCI cutoffs for clinically significant change (increase/decrease) at a 90% CI for males were as follows: Ocular, Vestibular >2/>4, Anxiety/Mood, Cognitive/Fatigue, Migraine>3/>3, Sleep >4/>6, and Neck>2/>2. RCI cutoffs for clinically significant change (increase/decrease) at a 90% CI for females were as follows: Anxiety/Mood≥2/≥4; Cognitive/Fatigue, Migraine, Ocular, Vestibular, Sleep≥3/≥3; and Neck≥1/≥1. Correlations for CP ranged from .51 (Migraine) to .79 (Anxiety/Mood) for the total sample, .48 (Migraine) to .84 (Vestibular) for males, and .51 (Migraine) to .77 (Ocular) for females. Test-retest indices for each profile and modifier were moderate to good for the total sample (ICC: .64-.82; UER: .79-.90), males (ICC: .60-.87; UER: .76-.94), and females (ICC: .64-.80; UER: .78-.89). Conclusion: The CP Screen is reliable and stable across a 1-week interval, and established RCIs for males and females can help identify meaningful change throughout recovery.

Commentary on "When (not) to rely on the reliable change index".

Why (not) rely on patients' perspectives? Time for a meaningful standard to measure and define patient-specific change in clinical psychology.

Establishment of a reliable change index for the GAD-7

The Duration-Adjusted Reliable Change Index: Defining Clinically Relevant Symptom Changes of Varying Durations

Significant individual change should be used as a lower bound for anchor based estimates of meaningful change on patient-reported outcome scores

Reliable Change Indices for the Serial Administration of the Concussion Clinical Profiles Screening Tool

Test–retest reliability and reliable change index of the Philips IntelliSpace Cognition digital test battery

Measuring True Change in Individual Patients: Reliable Change Indices of Cardiac Rehabilitation Outcomes, and Implications for Quality Indicators

Cronbach's Alpha: Review of Limitations and Associated Recommendations

Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency

Choosing Between Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha, McDonald's Coefficient Omega, and Coefficient H: Confidence Intervals and the Advantages and Drawbacks of Interpretive Guidelines

On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach’s Alpha

Difference Scores From the Point of View of Reliability and Repeated-Measures ANOVA

Quantifying replicability in systematic reviews: the r-value

On R&D capitalization and value relevance: a commentary

Alpha, Omega, and H Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates: Reviewing These Options and When to Use Them

A note on the score reliability for the Satisfaction With Life Scale: an RG study

A Comment to the Paper by Waltman Et Al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011

Tutorial: Assessing the impact of nonignorable missingness on regression analysis using Index of Local Sensitivity to Nonignorability.