Dataset Information

Prospective, Head-to-Head Study of Three Computerized Neurocognitive Assessment Tools (CNTs): Reliability and Validity for the Assessment of Sport-Related Concussion.

ABSTRACT: Limited data exist comparing the performance of computerized neurocognitive tests (CNTs) for assessing sport-related concussion. We evaluated the reliability and validity of three CNTs-ANAM, Axon Sports/Cogstate Sport, and ImPACT-in a common sample. High school and collegiate athletes completed two CNTs each at baseline. Concussed (n=165) and matched non-injured control (n=166) subjects repeated testing within 24 hr and at 8, 15, and 45 days post-injury. Roughly a quarter of each CNT's indices had stability coefficients (M=198 day interval) over .70. Group differences in performance were mostly moderate to large at 24 hr and small by day 8. The sensitivity of reliable change indices (RCIs) was best at 24 hr (67.8%, 60.3%, and 47.6% with one or more significant RCIs for ImPACT, Axon, and ANAM, respectively) but diminished to near the false positive rates thereafter. Across time, the CNTs' sensitivities were highest in those athletes who became asymptomatic within 1 day before neurocognitive testing but was similar to the tests' false positive rates when including athletes who became asymptomatic several days earlier. Test-retest reliability was similar among these three CNTs and below optimal standards for clinical use on many subtests. Analyses of group effect sizes, discrimination, and sensitivity and specificity suggested that the CNTs may add incrementally (beyond symptom scores) to the identification of clinical impairment within 24 hr of injury or within a short time period after symptom resolution but do not add significant value over symptom assessment later. The rapid clinical recovery course from concussion and modest stability probably jointly contribute to limited signal detection capabilities of neurocognitive tests outside a brief post-injury window. (JINS, 2016, 22, 24-37).

SUBMITTER: Nelson LD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4882608 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prospective, Head-to-Head Study of Three Computerized Neurocognitive Assessment Tools (CNTs): Reliability and Validity for the Assessment of Sport-Related Concussion.

Nelson Lindsay D LD LaRoche Ashley A AA Pfaller Adam Y AY Lerner E Brooke EB Hammeke Thomas A TA Randolph Christopher C Barr William B WB Guskiewicz Kevin K McCrea Michael A MA

Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS 20160101 1

Limited data exist comparing the performance of computerized neurocognitive tests (CNTs) for assessing sport-related concussion. We evaluated the reliability and validity of three CNTs-ANAM, Axon Sports/Cogstate Sport, and ImPACT-in a common sample. High school and collegiate athletes completed two CNTs each at baseline. Concussed (n=165) and matched non-injured control (n=166) subjects repeated testing within 24 hr and at 8, 15, and 45 days post-injury. Roughly a quarter of each CNT's indices h ...[more]

PMID: 26714883

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNeurocognitive testing is an important concussion evaluation tool, but for neurocognitive tests to be useful, their psychometric properties must be well established. Test-retest reliability of computerized neurocognitive tests can influence their clinical utility. The reliability for a commonly used computerized neurocognitive test, CNS Vital Signs, is not well established. The purpose of this study was to examine test-retest reliability and reliable change indices for CNS Vital Signs in a healthy, physically active college population.HypothesisCNS Vital Signs yields acceptable test-retest reliability, with greater reliability between the second and third test administration compared with between the first and second administration.Study designCohort study.Level of evidenceLevel 3.MethodsForty healthy, active volunteers (16 men, 24 women; mean age, 21.05 ± 2.17 years) reported to a clinical laboratory for 3 sessions, 1 week apart. At each session, participants were administered CNS Vital Signs. Outcomes included standard scores for the following CNS Vital Signs domains: verbal memory, visual memory, psychomotor speed, cognitive flexibility, complex attention, processing speed, reaction time, executive functioning, and reasoning.ResultsParticipants performed significantly better on the second session and/or third session than they did on the first testing session on 6 of 9 neurocognitive domains. Pearson r test-retest correlations between sessions ranged from 0.11 to 0.87. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.10 to 0.86.ConclusionClinicians should consider using reliable change indices to account for practice effects, identify meaningful score changes due to pathology, and inform clinical decisions.Clinical relevanceThis study highlights the importance of clinicians understanding the psychometric properties of computerized neurocognitive tests when using them in the management of sport-related concussion. If CNS Vital Signs is administered twice within a small time frame (such as 1 week), athletes should be expected to improve between the first and second administration.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Concussion diagnosis is typically made through clinical examination and supported by performance on clinical assessment tools. Performance on commonly implemented and emerging assessment tools is known to vary between administrations, in the absence of concussion. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the test-retest reliability of commonly implemented and emerging concussion assessment tools across a large nationally representative sample of student-athletes. METHODS:Participants (n = 4874) from the Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education Consortium completed annual baseline assessments on two or three occasions. Each assessment included measures of self-reported concussion symptoms, motor control, brief and extended neurocognitive function, reaction time, oculomotor/oculovestibular function, and quality of life. Consistency between years 1 and 2 and 1 and 3 were estimated using intraclass correlation coefficients or Kappa and effect sizes (Cohen's d). Clinical interpretation guidelines were also generated using confidence intervals to account for non-normally distributed data. RESULTS:Reliability for the self-reported concussion symptoms, motor control, and brief and extended neurocognitive assessments from year 1 to 2 ranged from 0.30 to 0.72 while effect sizes ranged from 0.01 to 0.28 (i.e., small). The reliability for these same measures ranged from 0.34 to 0.66 for the year 1-3 interval with effect sizes ranging from 0.05 to 0.42 (i.e., small to less than medium). The year 1-2 reliability for the reaction time, oculomotor/oculovestibular function, and quality-of-life measures ranged from 0.28 to 0.74 with effect sizes from 0.01 to 0.38 (i.e., small to less than medium effects). CONCLUSIONS:This investigation noted less than optimal reliability for most common and emerging concussion assessment tools. Despite this finding, their use is still necessitated by the absence of a gold standard diagnostic measure, with the ultimate goal of developing more refined and sound tools for clinical use. Clinical interpretation guidelines are provided for the clinician to apply with a degree of certainty in application.

Project description:ImportanceIdentifying plasma biomarkers associated with the amount of time an athlete may need before they return to sport (RTS) following a sport-related concussion (SRC) is important because it may help to improve the health and safety of athletes.ObjectiveTo examine whether plasma biomarkers can differentiate collegiate athletes who RTS in less than 14 days or 14 days or more following SRC.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter prospective diagnostic study, conducted by the National Collegiate Athletics Association-Department of Defense Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education Consortium, included 127 male and female athletes who had sustained an SRC while enrolled at 6 Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education Consortium Advanced Research Core sites as well as 2 partial-Advanced Research Core military service academies. Data were collected between February 2015 and May 2018. Athletes with SRC completed clinical testing and blood collection at preseason (baseline), postinjury (0-21 hours), 24 to 48 hours postinjury, time of symptom resolution, and 7 days after unrestricted RTS.Main outcomes and measuresA total of 3 plasma biomarkers (ie, total tau protein, glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], and neurofilament light chain protein [Nf-L]) were measured using an ultrasensitive single molecule array technology and were included in the final analysis. RTS was examined between athletes who took less than 14 days vs those who took 14 days or more to RTS following SRC. Linear mixed models were used to identify significant interactions between period by RTS group. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were conducted to examine whether these plasma biomarkers could discriminate between RTS groups.ResultsThe 127 participants had a mean (SD) age of 18.9 (1.3) years, and 97 (76.4%) were men; 65 (51.2%) took less than 14 days to RTS, and 62 (48.8%) took 14 days or more to RTS. Linear mixed models identified significant associations for both mean (SE) plasma total tau (24-48 hours postinjury, <14 days RTS vs ≥14 days RTS: -0.65 [0.12] pg/mL vs -0.14 [0.14] pg/mL; P = .008) and GFAP (postinjury, 14 days RTS vs ≥14 days RTS: 4.72 [0.12] pg/mL vs 4.39 [0.11] pg/mL; P = .04). Total tau at the time of symptom resolution had acceptable discrimination power (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.86; P < .001). We also examined a combined plasma biomarker panel that incorporated Nf-L, GFAP, and total tau at each period to discriminate RTS groups. Although the analyses did reach significance at each time period when combined, results indicated that they were poor at distinguishing the groups (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, <0.7).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that measures of total tau and GFAP may identify athletes who will require more time to RTS. However, further research is needed to improve our ability to determine recovery following an SRC.

Project description:CONTEXT:? Without a true criterion standard assessment, the sport-related concussion (SRC) diagnosis remains subjective. Inertial balance sensors have been proposed to improve acute SRC assessment, but few researchers have studied their clinical utility. OBJECTIVE:? To determine if group differences exist when using objective measures of balance in a sample of collegiate athletes with recent SRCs and participants serving as the control group and to calculate sensitivity and specificity to determine the diagnostic utility of the inertial balance sensor for acute SRC injuries. DESIGN:? Cross-sectional cohort study. SETTING:? Multicenter clinical trial. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS:? We enrolled 48 participants with SRC (age = 20.62 ± 1.52 years, height = 179.76 ± 10.00 cm, mass = 83.92 ± 23.22 kg) and 45 control participants (age = 20.85 ± 1.42 years, height = 177.02 ± 9.59 cm, mass = 74.61 ± 14.92 kg) at 7 clinical sites in the United States. All were varsity or club collegiate athletes, and all participants with SRC were tested within 72 hours of SRC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S):? Balance performance was assessed using an inertial balance sensor. Two measures (root mean square sway and 95% ellipse sway area) were analyzed to represent a range of general balance measures. Balance assessments were conducted in double-legged, single-legged, and tandem stances. RESULTS:? A main effect for group was associated with the root mean square sway measure ( F1,91 = 11.75, P = .001), with the SRC group demonstrating balance deficits compared with the control group. We observed group differences in the 95% ellipse sway area measure for the double-legged ( F1,91 = 11.59, P = .001), single-legged ( F1,91 = 6.91, P = .01), and tandem ( F1,91 = 7.54, P = .007) stances. Sensitivity was greatest using a cutoff value of 0.5 standard deviations (54% [specificity = 71%]), whereas specificity was greatest using a cutoff value of 2 standard deviations (98% [sensitivity = 33%]). CONCLUSIONS:? Inertial balance sensors may be useful tools for objectively measuring balance during acute SRC evaluation. However, low sensitivity suggests that they may be best used in conjunction with other assessments to form a comprehensive screening that may improve sensitivity.

Dataset Information

Prospective, Head-to-Head Study of Three Computerized Neurocognitive Assessment Tools (CNTs): Reliability and Validity for the Assessment of Sport-Related Concussion.

Publications

Prospective, Head-to-Head Study of Three Computerized Neurocognitive Assessment Tools (CNTs): Reliability and Validity for the Assessment of Sport-Related Concussion.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets