Literature DB >> 36040610

Psychometric Properties of Computerized Cognitive Tools and Standard Neuropsychological Tests Used to Assess Sport Concussion: A Systematic Review.

Kristin Wilmoth1, Benjamin L Brett2, Natalie A Emmert3, Carolyn M Cook4, Jeffrey Schaffert5, Todd Caze5, Thomas Kotsonis4, Margaret Cusick4, Gary Solomon6, Jacob E Resch7, C Munro Cullum8, Lindsay D Nelson2, Michael McCrea2.   

Abstract

Athletic programs are more frequently turning to computerized cognitive tools in order to increase efficiencies in concussion assessment. However, assessment using a traditional neuropsychological test battery may provide a more comprehensive and individualized evaluation. Our goal was to inform sport clinicians of the best practices for concussion assessment through a systematic literature review describing the psychometric properties of standard neuropsychological tests and computerized tools. We conducted our search in relevant databases including Ovid Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Journal articles were included if they evaluated psychometric properties (e.g., reliability, sensitivity) of a cognitive assessment within pure athlete samples (up to 30 days post-injury). Searches yielded 4,758 unique results. Ultimately, 103 articles met inclusion criteria, all of which focused on adolescent or young adult participants. Test-retest reliability estimates ranged from .14 to .93 for computerized tools and .02 to .95 for standard neuropsychological tests, with strongest correlations on processing speed tasks for both modalities, although processing speed tasks were most susceptible to practice effects. Reliability was improved with a 2-factor model (processing speed and memory) and by aggregating multiple baseline exams, yet remained below acceptable limits for some studies. Sensitivity to decreased cognitive performance within 72 h of injury ranged from 45%-93% for computerized tools and 18%-80% for standard neuropsychological test batteries. The method for classifying cognitive decline (normative comparison, reliable change indices, regression-based methods) affected sensitivity estimates. Combining computerized tools and standard neuropsychological tests with the strongest psychometric performance provides the greatest value in clinical assessment. To this end, future studies should evaluate the efficacy of hybrid test batteries comprised of top-performing measures from both modalities.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Computerized neurocognitive tests; Neuropsychological assessment; Reliability; Sensitivity; Sport concussion; Validity

Year:  2022        PMID: 36040610     DOI: 10.1007/s11065-022-09553-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychol Rev        ISSN: 1040-7308            Impact factor:   6.940


  119 in total

1.  The neuropsychological impact of sports-related concussion: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Heather G Belanger; Rodney D Vanderploeg
Journal:  J Int Neuropsychol Soc       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.892

2.  Computerized neuropsychological assessment devices: joint position paper of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology and the National Academy of Neuropsychology.

Authors:  Russell M Bauer; Grant L Iverson; Alison N Cernich; Laurence M Binder; Ronald M Ruff; Richard I Naugle
Journal:  Arch Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 2.813

3.  The influence of validity criteria on Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) test-retest reliability among high school athletes.

Authors:  Benjamin L Brett; Gary S Solomon
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2016-09-02       Impact factor: 2.475

4.  Recovery progression and symptom resolution in sport-related mild traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Ensie Abbassi; Bess Sirmon-Taylor
Journal:  Brain Inj       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Prevalence of Invalid Performance on Baseline Testing for Sport-Related Concussion by Age and Validity Indicator.

Authors:  Christopher A Abeare; Isabelle Messa; Brandon G Zuccato; Bradley Merker; Laszlo Erdodi
Journal:  JAMA Neurol       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 18.302

6.  An evaluation of screening measures for cognitive impairment after stroke.

Authors:  Holly Blake; Michelle McKinney; Karen Treece; Elizabeth Lee; Nadina B Lincoln
Journal:  Age Ageing       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 10.668

7.  Bifactor Model of the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool Symptom Checklist: Replication and Invariance Across Time in the CARE Consortium Sample.

Authors:  Benjamin L Brett; Mark D Kramer; Michael A McCrea; Steven P Broglio; Thomas W McAllister; Lindsay D Nelson; Joseph B Hazzard; Louise A Kelly; Justus Ortega; Nicholas Port; Paul F Pasquina; Jonathan Jackson; Kenneth L Cameron; Megan N Houston; Joshua T Goldman; Christopher Giza; Thomas Buckley; James R Clugston; Julianne D Schmidt; Luis A Feigenbaum; James T Eckner; Christina L Master; Michael W Collins; Anthony P Kontos; Sara P D Chrisman; Stefan M Duma; Christopher M Miles; Adam Susmarski
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2020-08-18       Impact factor: 6.202

8.  Two-year Test-Retest Reliability in High School Athletes Using the Four- and Two-Factor ImPACT Composite Structures: The Effects of Learning Disorders and Headache/Migraine Treatment History.

Authors:  Benjamin L Brett; Gary S Solomon; Jennifer Hill; Philip Schatz
Journal:  Arch Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 2.813

9.  Test-Retest Reliability and Interpretation of Common Concussion Assessment Tools: Findings from the NCAA-DoD CARE Consortium.

Authors:  Steven P Broglio; Barry P Katz; Shi Zhao; Michael McCrea; Thomas McAllister
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 11.136

10.  The auditory comprehension changes over time after sport-related concussion can indicate multisensory processing dysfunctions.

Authors:  Anita Białuńska; Anthony P Salvatore
Journal:  Brain Behav       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 2.708

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.