CONTEXT: Large-scale baseline cognitive assessment for individuals at risk for concussion is a common part of the protocol for concussion-surveillance programs, particularly in sports. Baseline cognitive testing is also being conducted in US military service members before deployment. Recently, the incremental validity of large-scale baseline cognitive assessment has been questioned. OBJECTIVE: To examine the added value of baseline cognitive testing in computer-based neuropsychological assessment by comparing 2 methods of classifying atypical performance in a presumed healthy sample. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Military base. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Military service members who took the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Matrix (ANAM) before and after deployment (n = 8002). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Rates of atypical performance in this healthy, active-duty sample were determined first by comparing postdeployment scores with a military normative database and then with each individual's personal baseline performance using a reliable change index. RESULTS: Overall rates of atypical performance were comparable across these 2 methods. However, these methods were highly discordant in terms of which individuals were classified as atypical. When norm-referenced methods were used, 2.6% of individuals classified as normal actually demonstrated declines from baseline. Further, 65.7% of individuals classified as atypical using norm-referenced scores showed no change from baseline (ie, potential false-positive findings). CONCLUSIONS: Knowing an individual's baseline performance is important for minimizing potential false-positive errors and reducing the risks and stresses of misdiagnosis.
CONTEXT: Large-scale baseline cognitive assessment for individuals at risk for concussion is a common part of the protocol for concussion-surveillance programs, particularly in sports. Baseline cognitive testing is also being conducted in US military service members before deployment. Recently, the incremental validity of large-scale baseline cognitive assessment has been questioned. OBJECTIVE: To examine the added value of baseline cognitive testing in computer-based neuropsychological assessment by comparing 2 methods of classifying atypical performance in a presumed healthy sample. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Military base. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Military service members who took the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Matrix (ANAM) before and after deployment (n = 8002). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Rates of atypical performance in this healthy, active-duty sample were determined first by comparing postdeployment scores with a military normative database and then with each individual's personal baseline performance using a reliable change index. RESULTS: Overall rates of atypical performance were comparable across these 2 methods. However, these methods were highly discordant in terms of which individuals were classified as atypical. When norm-referenced methods were used, 2.6% of individuals classified as normal actually demonstrated declines from baseline. Further, 65.7% of individuals classified as atypical using norm-referenced scores showed no change from baseline (ie, potential false-positive findings). CONCLUSIONS: Knowing an individual's baseline performance is important for minimizing potential false-positive errors and reducing the risks and stresses of misdiagnosis.
Authors: Kevin M Guskiewicz; Scott L Bruce; Robert C Cantu; Michael S Ferrara; James P Kelly; Michael McCrea; Margot Putukian; Tamara C Valovich McLeod Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Jennifer J Vasterling; Susan P Proctor; Paul Amoroso; Robert Kane; Timothy Heeren; Roberta F White Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-08-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrea S Vincent; Joseph Bleiberg; Sam Yan; Brian Ivins; Dennis L Reeves; Karen Schwab; Kirby Gilliland; Robert Schlegel; Deborah Warden Journal: Mil Med Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: David J Schretlen; S Marc Testa; Jessica M Winicki; Godfrey D Pearlson; Barry Gordon Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Tresa M Roebuck-Spencer; Andrea S Vincent; David A Twillie; Bret W Logan; Mary Lopez; Karl E Friedl; Stephen J Grate; Robert E Schlegel; Kirby Gilliland Journal: Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 3.535
Authors: Heidi Terrio; Lisa A Brenner; Brian J Ivins; John M Cho; Katherine Helmick; Karen Schwab; Katherine Scally; Rick Bretthauer; Deborah Warden Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.710
Authors: R J Elbin; Alicia Sufrinko; Morgan N Anderson; Samantha Mohler; Philip Schatz; Tracey Covassin; Anne Mucha; Michael W Collins; Anthony P Kontos Journal: J Neurol Phys Ther Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Jessica Wallace; Phillip Worts; Ryan Moran; Justin Mason; Katherine K Weise; Mark Swanson; Nicholas Murray Journal: J Clin Transl Res Date: 2020-10-07