Skip to content

The test-retest reliability of three computerized neurocognitive tests used in the assessment of sport concussion

Int J Psychophysiol.. 2017 Sep;

Resch, J. E., Schneider, M. W. and Munro Cullum, C..

FEE $

Wouldn’t it be nice to earn CME Credits for the research work you’re already doing?

Abstract:

Computerized neurocognitive tests (CNTs) are widely used at all competitive levels of sport to assess sport concussion (SC). Whereas there are multiple CNTs available, little is known about how some of the most popular platforms compare. The purpose of this study was to investigate the test-retest reliability of the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM), Concussion Vital Signs (CVS) and the Immediate Postconcussion and Cognitive Testing battery (ImPACT) using clinically relevant time points in healthy college-age participants. Participants were healthy college-age students (N=128) randomly assigned into one of three groups which were administered ANAM, CVS, or ImPACT at Days 1, 45 and 50. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Pearson correlations were used to assess reliability of the various CNT scores and subtest scores between time points. Participants were tested approximately 47.1+/-2.75days after time point 1 and approximately 7.0+/-2.45days after time point 2. ICC values ranged from 0.18 (Procedural Reaction Time) to 0.53 (Mathematical Processing and Simple Reaction Time 1) for ANAM, 0.14 (Continuous Performance Test) to 0.85 (Reaction Time) for CVS, and 0.19 (Verbal Memory) to 0.89 (Visual Motor Speed) for ImPACT. Significant improvements (p<0.05) across time were observed for (7/10) CNS Vital Signs composite scores, but no additional significant changes in performance were observed for the remaining CNTs. Overall, weak to strong reliability coefficients for ANAM, CVS, and ImPACT were observed when using clinically relevant time points of repeated administration. KEYWORDS: Computerized neurocognitive test; Concussion; Mild traumatic brain injury; Reliability PMID: 28935224 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.09.011

Links to full article: