Bara Alsalaheen1, Kayla Stockdale2, Dana Pechumer2, Steven P Broglio3. 1. Physical Therapy Department, University of Michigan-Flint, 2157 William S. White Building, 303 E. Kearsley Street, Flint, MI, 48502-1950, USA. alsalahe@umflint.edu. 2. Physical Therapy Department, University of Michigan-Flint, 2157 William S. White Building, 303 E. Kearsley Street, Flint, MI, 48502-1950, USA. 3. Neurotrauma Research Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The immediate post concussion assessment and cognitive testing (ImPACT) is the most widely used concussion assessment tool. Despite its popularity, it is unclear if validation studies for the ImPACT test covered all aspects of validity to support its widespread use in research and clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this report is to review literature surrounding the validity and the utility of the ImPACT test. DATA SOURCES AND APPRAISAL: A systematic review of relevant studies in PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO was carried out. Studies were evaluated using the STROBE (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology) or the STARD (standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy) criteria. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 5968 studies. Sixty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative review. Although the convergent validity of ImPACT was supported, evidence of discriminant and predictive validity, diagnostic accuracy and responsiveness was inconclusive. The utility of the ImPACT test after acute symptom resolution was sparse. The review found many factors influenced the validity and utility of ImPACT scores. CONCLUSION: Clinicians must consider the benefit of ImPACT testing for their patients on a case-by-case scenario and must take the psychometric properties of the test into account when interpreting results.
BACKGROUND: The immediate post concussion assessment and cognitive testing (ImPACT) is the most widely used concussion assessment tool. Despite its popularity, it is unclear if validation studies for the ImPACT test covered all aspects of validity to support its widespread use in research and clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this report is to review literature surrounding the validity and the utility of the ImPACT test. DATA SOURCES AND APPRAISAL: A systematic review of relevant studies in PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO was carried out. Studies were evaluated using the STROBE (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology) or the STARD (standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy) criteria. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 5968 studies. Sixty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative review. Although the convergent validity of ImPACT was supported, evidence of discriminant and predictive validity, diagnostic accuracy and responsiveness was inconclusive. The utility of the ImPACT test after acute symptom resolution was sparse. The review found many factors influenced the validity and utility of ImPACT scores. CONCLUSION: Clinicians must consider the benefit of ImPACT testing for their patients on a case-by-case scenario and must take the psychometric properties of the test into account when interpreting results.
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet; Jeroen G Lijmer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: B Joel Tjarks; Jason C Dorman; Verle D Valentine; Thayne A Munce; Paul A Thompson; Shanna L Kindt; Michael F Bergeron Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: Lindsay D Nelson; Ashley A LaRoche; Adam Y Pfaller; E Brooke Lerner; Thomas A Hammeke; Christopher Randolph; William B Barr; Kevin Guskiewicz; Michael A McCrea Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Philip Schatz; Timothy Kelley; Summer D Ott; Gary S Solomon; R J Elbin; Kate Higgins; Rosemarie Scolaro Moser Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Jaclyn B Caccese; Ryan M DeWolf; Thomas W Kaminski; Steven P Broglio; Thomas W McAllister; Michael McCrea; Thomas A Buckley Journal: Sports Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Jaclyn A Stephens; Patricia L Davies; William J Gavin; Stewart H Mostofsky; Beth S Slomine; Stacy J Suskauer Journal: J Mot Behav Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 1.328
Authors: Bara Alsalaheen; Kayla Stockdale; Dana Pechumer; Steven P Broglio; Gregory F Marchetti Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Bara Alsalaheen; Kayla Stockdale; Dana Pechumer; Alexander Giessing; Xuming He; Steven P Broglio Journal: Sports Health Date: 2017 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 3.843
Authors: Tamara R Espinoza; Kristopher A Hendershot; Brian Liu; Andrea Knezevic; Breanne B Jacobs; Russell K Gore; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Jeffery J Bazarian; Shean E Phelps; David W Wright; Michelle C LaPlaca Journal: Neurotrauma Rep Date: 2021-05-26
Authors: Simon M Rice; Alexandra G Parker; Simon Rosenbaum; Alan Bailey; Daveena Mawren; Rosemary Purcell Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Daryl H C Fong; Adrian Cohen; Philip Boughton; Paul Raftos; Joseph E Herrera; Neil G Simon; David Putrino Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 4.677