| Title |
Computerized Neurocognitive Testing in the Management of Sport-Related Concussion: An Update
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychology Review, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11065-013-9242-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jacob E. Resch, Michael A. McCrea, C. Munro Cullum |
| Abstract |
Since the late nineties, computerized neurocognitive testing has become a central component of sport-related concussion (SRC) management at all levels of sport. In 2005, a review of the available evidence on the psychometric properties of four computerized neuropsychological test batteries concluded that the tests did not possess the necessary criteria to warrant clinical application. Since the publication of that review, several more computerized neurocognitive tests have entered the market place. The purpose of this review is to summarize the body of published studies on psychometric properties and clinical utility of computerized neurocognitive tests available for use in the assessment of SRC. A review of the literature from 2005 to 2013 was conducted to gather evidence of test-retest reliability and clinical validity of these instruments. Reviewed articles included both prospective and retrospective studies of primarily sport-based adult and pediatric samples. Summaries are provided regarding the available evidence of reliability and validity for the most commonly used computerized neurocognitive tests in sports settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 4% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 158 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 13% |
| Researcher | 19 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 8% |
| Other | 30 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 41 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 23% |
| Neuroscience | 20 | 12% |
| Sports and Recreations | 14 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 11% |
| Unknown | 30 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2019.
All research outputs
#736,955
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychology Review
#19
of 453 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,542
of 306,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychology Review
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 453 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them