↓ Skip to main content

Practice Effects Associated With Repeated Assessment of a Clinical Test of Reaction Time

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Athletic Training, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
3 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
180 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Practice Effects Associated With Repeated Assessment of a Clinical Test of Reaction Time
Published in
Journal of Athletic Training, March 2014
DOI 10.4085/1062-6059-49.2.04
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gianluca Del Rossi, Alfonso Malaguti, Samanta Del Rossi

Abstract

Context: Researchers have confirmed that the ruler-drop test could be included as part of a multifaceted concussion-assessment battery and potentially as a way to track recovery from head injury. However, it is unclear if this clinical test of reaction time would be characterized by inconsistent performance because of practice effects. Objective: To determine if the ruler-drop test is susceptible to practice effects after serial administration. Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Setting: Sports medicine research laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: Forty-three persons (age = 21.8 ± 2.6 years). Intervention(s): Ten sessions were completed over 5 weeks. Participants completed 10 trials of the ruler-drop test during each session. Main Outcome Measure(s): The mean reaction times calculated for all participants from each test session were analyzed to determine if there was any meaningful change (ie, improvement) in reaction time over the course of the investigation. Results: Simple reaction time improved (ie, decreased) after repeated administration of the ruler-drop test, and the most pronounced improvement occurred between the first 2 test sessions. Between the first and second test sessions, reaction time decreased by almost 7 milliseconds, and there was an overall improvement of almost 13 milliseconds between the first and tenth sessions. Although the pairwise comparisons between the first and second and the first and third sessions were not significant, the change in mean reaction time between the first session and most of the other sessions was significant. We noted no differences when successive sessions were compared. Conclusions: To prevent practice-related improvements in reaction time, practitioners should allow at least 1 practice session before recording baseline results on the ruler-drop test.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 179 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 32 18%
Student > Master 18 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 6%
Other 9 5%
Researcher 9 5%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 81 45%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 22 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Psychology 11 6%
Neuroscience 7 4%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 86 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 14 February 2025.
All research outputs
#4,753,080
of 32,921,030 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Athletic Training
#954
of 2,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,939
of 260,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Athletic Training
#11
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,921,030 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 260,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.