Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

Living Edition
| Editors: Jeffrey Kreutzer, John DeLuca, Bruce Caplan

Positive Predictive Power

  • Grant L. Iverson
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56782-2_1234-3

Synonyms

Definition

Positive predictive value (PPV) represents the probability that a person has a disease or condition given a positive test result. That is, it is the proportion of individuals with positive test results who are correctly identified or diagnosed. It is a critical diagnostic statistic because it reflects the accuracy with which a test can identify a disease or condition. In a population, it can be defined as the number of true positives divided by the sum of true positives and false positives. PPV is related to the sensitivity and specificity of the test. Sensitivity refers to the true positive rate for people with a disease or condition having a positive test result. Specificity refers to the true negative rate for healthy people having a negative test result. The relation among these terms is illustrated in Fig. 1.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References and Readings

  1. Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., et al. (2003). The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 138(1), W1–W12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Labarge, A. S., McCaffrey, R. J., & Brown, T. A. (2003). Neuropsychologists’ abilities to determine the predictive value of diagnostic tests. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18(2), 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Mackinnon, A. (2000). A spreadsheet for the calculation of comprehensive statistics for the assessment of diagnostic tests and inter-rater agreement. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 30(3), 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Smidt, N., Rutjes, A. W., van der Windt, D. A., Ostelo, R. W., Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., et al. (2006). The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: Has it improved? Neurology, 67(5), 792–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Woods, S. P., Weinborn, M., & Lovejoy, D. W. (2003). Are classification accuracy statistics underused in neuropsychological research? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25(3), 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationSpaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolCharlestownUSA