The critiques of Collins (1996) and Humphreys (1996) certainly throw light on properties of gain scores and difference scores that have led to controversies in the past. Collins' examples reveal that familiar formulas for the reliability of differences do not adequately reflect the precision of measures of change, because they do not allow for intraindividual change. Some additional examples are provided here, and a similar argument is applied to the reliability of a single test. As Collins im plies, these arguments indeed disclose flaws, not only in the conventional approach to the reliability of gains and differences, but also in the basic concept of reliability in classical test theory. Index terms: change scores, clas sical test theory, difference scores, gain scores, intrain dividual differences, measurement of growth, reliability, test theory, validity.

Additional Metadata
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1177/014662169602000310
Journal Applied Psychological Measurement
Citation
Williams, R.H. (Richard H.), & Zimmerman, D.W. (Donald W.). (1996). Commentary on the Commentaries of Collins and Humphreys. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(3), 295–297. doi:10.1177/014662169602000310