{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.042105263157894736, 'fraction_numerical': 0.024210526315789474, 'mean_word_length': 4.798780487804878, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Five methods for computing significant individual client change and improvement rates: support for an individual growth curve approach.

Interest has been renewed in methods for determining individual client change. Currently, there are at least 4 pretreatment-posttreatment (pre-post) difference score methods. A 5th method, based on a random effects model and multiwave data, represents a growth curve approach and was hypothesized to be more sensitive to detecting significant (p < .05) change than the pre-post methods. The change rates produced by the 5 methods were compared in a sample of 73 older outpatients with 3 to 5 assessments per client on a measure of well-being (H. J. Dupuy, 1977). Results indicated that the growth curve approach improvement rate was the highest (68.5%). The growth curve and the Edwards-Nunnally (63.0%) methods produced significantly (p < .05) higher improvement rates than the other 3 methods, with 1 exception.