Utility of repeated assessment after invalid baseline neurocognitive test performance
- PMID: 25162778
- PMCID: PMC4208871
- DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.37
Utility of repeated assessment after invalid baseline neurocognitive test performance
Abstract
Context: Although the prevalence of invalid baseline neurocognitive testing has been documented, and repeated administration after obtaining invalid results is recommended, no empirical data are available on the utility of repeated assessment after obtaining invalid baseline results.
Objective: To document the utility of readministering neurocognitive testing after an invalid baseline test.
Design: Case series.
Setting: Schools, colleges, and universities.
Patients or other participants: A total of 156 athletes who obtained invalid results on ImPACT baseline neurocognitive testing and were readministered the ImPACT baseline test within a 2-week period (mean = 4 days).
Main outcome measure(s): Overall prevalence of invalid results on reassessment, specific invalidity indicators at initial and follow-up baseline, dependent-samples analysis of variance, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.
Results: Reassessment resulted in valid test results for 87.2% of the sample. Poor performance on the design memory and three-letter subscales were the most common reasons for athletes obtaining an invalid baseline result, on both the initial assessment and the reassessment. Significant improvements were noted on all ImPACT composite scores except for reaction time on reassessment. Of note, 40% of athletes showed slower reaction time scores on reassessment, perhaps reflecting a more cautious approach taken the second time. Invalid results were more likely to be obtained by athletes with a self-reported history of attention-deficit disorder or learning disability on reassessments (35%) than on initial baseline assessments (10%).
Conclusions: Repeat assessment after the initial invalid baseline performance yielded valid results in nearly 90% of cases. Invalid results on a follow-up assessment may be influenced by a history of attention-deficit disorder or learning disability, the skills and abilities of the individual, or a particular test-taking approach; in these cases, a third assessment may not be useful.
Keywords: ImPACT; baseline testing; concussion testing; head injuries; invalid baseline; neuropsychological testing.
References
- 
    - Bakhos LL, Lockhart GR, Myers R, Linakis JG. Emergency department visits for concussion in young child athletes. Pediatrics. 2010;126(3):e550–e556. - PubMed
 
- 
    - Lincoln AE, Caswell SV, Almquist JL, Dunn RE, Norris JB, Hinton RY. Trends in concussion incidence in high school sports: a prospective 11-year study. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(5):958–963. - PubMed
 
- 
    - McCrory P, Meeuwisse WH, Aubry M, et al. Consensus statement on concussion in sport: the 4th International Conference on Concussion in Sport held in Zurich, November 2012. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(5):250–258. - PubMed
 
- 
    - Barth JT, Alves W, Ryan T, Macciocchi SN, Rimel RW, Nelson WE. Mild head injury in sports: neuropsychological sequelae and recovery of function. In: HS Levin, Eisenberg HM, Benton AL., editors. Mild Head Injury. New York, NY: Oxford University Press;; 1989. pp. 257–275. In. eds.
 
- 
    - Lovell MR, Collins MW. Neuropsychological assessment of the college football player. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1998;13(2):9–26. - PubMed
 
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
- Full Text Sources
- Other Literature Sources
- Medical
 
        