R J Elbin1, Nathan R D'Amico1, Matthew McCarthy1, Melissa N Womble2, Sydne O'Connor3, Philip Schatz3. 1. Department of Health, Human Performance and Recreation/Office for Sport Concussion Research, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AK, USA. 2. Inova Medical Group - Department of Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, Inova Sports Medicine Concussion Program, Fairfax, VA, USA. 3. Department of Psychology, Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare neurocognitive scores between the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) Quick Test (QT) and Online Versions in non-concussed high school athletes. METHODS: A sample of 47 high school athletes completed the ImPACT Online Version pre-season and the ImPACT QT approximately 3 months later. Paired sample t-tests and Pearson's correlations examined differences and relationships between the ImPACT batteries. RESULTS: The ImPACT QT scores were significantly higher for performance on the Three Letters: Average Counted (p < .001, d = .88), Three Letters: Average Counted Correctly (p < .001, d = .80), and Symbol Match: Correct RT Visible (p < .001, d = .72), and Symbol Match: Correct RT Hidden (p = .002, d = .50) subtests. There were significant relationships for Three Letters: Average Counted (r = .85, p < .001), Three Letters: Average Counted Correctly (r = .82, p < .001), and Symbol Match: Total Correct Hidden (r = .40, p = .006) subtests. CONCLUSIONS: Post-injury evaluation data using ImPACT QT should be compared to normative referenced data, and not to pre-season data from the ImPACT Online Version.
OBJECTIVE: To compare neurocognitive scores between the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) Quick Test (QT) and Online Versions in non-concussed high school athletes. METHODS: A sample of 47 high school athletes completed the ImPACT Online Version pre-season and the ImPACT QT approximately 3 months later. Paired sample t-tests and Pearson's correlations examined differences and relationships between the ImPACT batteries. RESULTS: The ImPACT QT scores were significantly higher for performance on the Three Letters: Average Counted (p < .001, d = .88), Three Letters: Average Counted Correctly (p < .001, d = .80), and Symbol Match: Correct RT Visible (p < .001, d = .72), and Symbol Match: Correct RT Hidden (p = .002, d = .50) subtests. There were significant relationships for Three Letters: Average Counted (r = .85, p < .001), Three Letters: Average Counted Correctly (r = .82, p < .001), and Symbol Match: Total Correct Hidden (r = .40, p = .006) subtests. CONCLUSIONS: Post-injury evaluation data using ImPACT QT should be compared to normative referenced data, and not to pre-season data from the ImPACT Online Version.
Authors: Kristin Wilmoth; Benjamin L Brett; Natalie A Emmert; Carolyn M Cook; Jeffrey Schaffert; Todd Caze; Thomas Kotsonis; Margaret Cusick; Gary Solomon; Jacob E Resch; C Munro Cullum; Lindsay D Nelson; Michael McCrea Journal: Neuropsychol Rev Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 6.940