PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7176622

A model for predicting clinically relevant group differences of open-response tests.

H N Gutnick·R St John
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A comparison is made between testing for differences in group means and testing to assign an individual subject to one of two populations. A distinction is made between sample means of speech-discrimination tests which are statistically different and clinically useful speech-discrimination tests for properly classifying an individual. The probabilities of misclassification are discussed.

Explore related subjects

False Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsHumansModels, TheoreticalSpeech Discrimination TestsStatistics as TopicComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H N Gutnick, R St John. 1982. A model for predicting clinically relevant group differences of open-response tests.. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2503.468

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Whole, Turret and step methods of rapid rescreening: is there any difference in performance?

We compared the performance of the Whole, Turret and Step techniques of 100% rapid rescreening (RR) in detection of false-negatives in cervical cytology. We tested RR performance with cytologists trained and among those without training. We revised 1,000 consecutive slides from women participating in an ongoing international screening trial. Two teams of experienced cytologists performed the RR techniques: one trained in RR procedures and the other not trained. The sensitivities in the trained group were Whole 46.6%, Turret 47.4% and Step 50.9%; and in the non-trained group were 38.6, 31.6 and 47.4%, respectively. The kappa coefficient showed a weak agreement between the two groups of cytologists and between the three RR techniques. The RR techniques are more valuable if used by trained cytologists. In the trained group, we did not observe significant differences between the RR techniques used, whereas in the non-trained group, the Step technique had the best sensitivity.

False Negative Reactions↗
PubMed2006

Improved reliability of lymphoma diagnostics via PCR-based clonality testing: report of the BIOMED-2 Concerted Action BHM4-CT98-3936.

The diagnosis of malignant lymphoma is a recognized difficult area in histopathology. Therefore, detection of clonality in a suspected lymphoproliferation is a valuable diagnostic criterion. We have developed primer sets for the detection of rearrangements in the B- and T-cell receptor genes as reliable tools for clonality assessment in lymphoproliferations suspected for lymphoma. In this issue of Leukemia, the participants of the BIOMED-2 Concerted Action CT98-3936 report on the validation of the newly developed clonality assays in various disease entities. Clonality was detected in 99% of all B-cell malignancies and in 94% of all T-cell malignancies, whereas the great majority of reactive lesions showed polyclonality. The combined BIOMED-2 results are summarized in a guideline, which can now be implemented in routine lymphoma diagnostics. The use of this standardized approach in patients with a suspect lymphoproliferation will result in improved diagnosis of malignant lymphoma.

False Negative Reactions↗