CONTEXT: Researchers have confirmed that the ruler-drop test could be included as part of a multifaceted concussion-assessment battery and potentially as a way to track recovery from head injury. However, it is unclear if this clinical test of reaction time would be characterized by inconsistent performance because of practice effects. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the ruler-drop test is susceptible to practice effects after serial administration. DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. SETTING: Sports medicine research laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three persons (age = 21.8 ± 2.6 years). INTERVENTION(S): Ten sessions were completed over 5 weeks. Participants completed 10 trials of the ruler-drop test during each session. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The mean reaction times calculated for all participants from each test session were analyzed to determine if there was any meaningful change (ie, improvement) in reaction time over the course of the investigation. RESULTS: Simple reaction time improved (ie, decreased) after repeated administration of the ruler-drop test, and the most pronounced improvement occurred between the first 2 test sessions. Between the first and second test sessions, reaction time decreased by almost 7 milliseconds, and there was an overall improvement of almost 13 milliseconds between the first and tenth sessions. Although the pairwise comparisons between the first and second and the first and third sessions were not significant, the change in mean reaction time between the first session and most of the other sessions was significant. We noted no differences when successive sessions were compared. CONCLUSIONS: To prevent practice-related improvements in reaction time, practitioners should allow at least 1 practice session before recording baseline results on the ruler-drop test.
CONTEXT: Researchers have confirmed that the ruler-drop test could be included as part of a multifaceted concussion-assessment battery and potentially as a way to track recovery from head injury. However, it is unclear if this clinical test of reaction time would be characterized by inconsistent performance because of practice effects. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the ruler-drop test is susceptible to practice effects after serial administration. DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. SETTING: Sports medicine research laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three persons (age = 21.8 ± 2.6 years). INTERVENTION(S): Ten sessions were completed over 5 weeks. Participants completed 10 trials of the ruler-drop test during each session. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The mean reaction times calculated for all participants from each test session were analyzed to determine if there was any meaningful change (ie, improvement) in reaction time over the course of the investigation. RESULTS: Simple reaction time improved (ie, decreased) after repeated administration of the ruler-drop test, and the most pronounced improvement occurred between the first 2 test sessions. Between the first and second test sessions, reaction time decreased by almost 7 milliseconds, and there was an overall improvement of almost 13 milliseconds between the first and tenth sessions. Although the pairwise comparisons between the first and second and the first and third sessions were not significant, the change in mean reaction time between the first session and most of the other sessions was significant. We noted no differences when successive sessions were compared. CONCLUSIONS: To prevent practice-related improvements in reaction time, practitioners should allow at least 1 practice session before recording baseline results on the ruler-drop test.
Entities:
Keywords:
concussion-assessment battery; head injuries; yardstick test
Authors: D L Warden; J Bleiberg; K L Cameron; J Ecklund; J Walter; M B Sparling; D Reeves; K Y Reynolds; R Arciero Journal: Neurology Date: 2001-08-14 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Kimberly A Cote; Catherine E Milner; Brian A Smith; Adam J Aubin; Tamara A Greason; Brielle P Cuthbert; Stephanie Wiebe; Shannon E G Duffus Journal: J Sleep Res Date: 2009-06-22 Impact factor: 3.981
Authors: Maximilian von Bernstorff; Felix Bausenhart; Jennifer Rapp; Martina Feierabend; Ingmar Ipach; Ulf Krister Hofmann Journal: Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 1.511
Authors: Catherine L Tegeler; Lee Gerdes; Hossam A Shaltout; Jared F Cook; Sean L Simpson; Sung W Lee; Charles H Tegeler Journal: Mil Med Res Date: 2017-12-22
Authors: Yusuf Patrick; Alice Lee; Oishik Raha; Kavya Pillai; Shubham Gupta; Sonika Sethi; Felicite Mukeshimana; Lothaire Gerard; Mohammad U Moghal; Sohag N Saleh; Susan F Smith; Mary J Morrell; James Moss Journal: Sleep Biol Rhythms Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 1.186
Authors: Madeleine Ordnung; Maike Hoff; Elisabeth Kaminski; Arno Villringer; Patrick Ragert Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 3.169