{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.25625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?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}}
The Precision of Change Scores Under Absolute and Relative Interpretations

Although some progress has been made in rehabilitating change scores by showing that they are not necessarily unreliable, they are still generally thought to be less reliable than the measures from which they are derived. However, the focus on reliability or generalizability as a measure of the precision of change scores may be misguided because both reliability and generalizability coefficients assume a norm-referenced interpretation, whereas many applications of change scores rely on an absolute interpretation of the change. We examined the precision of change scores in terms of error-tolerance (E/T) ratios for both relative and absolute interpretations of change scores. E/T ratios are used to evaluate the error in estimating the change relative to the tolerance for error in a particular context. Achievement test data in which people are crossed with items within categories are used to illustrate the results.