Concussion diagnosis is typically made through clinical examination and supported by performance on clinical assessment tools. Performance on commonly implemented and emerging assessment tools is known to vary between administrations, in the absence of concussion.
To evaluate the test-retest reliability of commonly implemented and emerging concussion assessment tools across a large nationally representative sample of student-athletes.
Participants (n = 4874) from the Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education Consortium completed annual baseline assessments on two or three occasions. Each assessment included measures of self-reported concussion symptoms, motor control, brief and extended neurocognitive function, reaction time, oculomotor/oculovestibular function, and quality of life. Consistency between years 1 and 2 and 1 and 3 were estimated using intraclass correlation coefficients or Kappa and effect sizes (Cohen's d). Clinical interpretation guidelines were also generated using confidence intervals to account for non-normally distributed data.
Reliability for the self-reported concussion symptoms, motor control, and brief and extended neurocognitive assessments from year 1 to 2 ranged from 0.30 to 0.72 while effect sizes ranged from 0.01 to 0.28 (i.e., small). The reliability for these same measures ranged from 0.34 to 0.66 for the year 1-3 interval with effect sizes ranging from 0.05 to 0.42 (i.e., small to less than medium). The year 1-2 reliability for the reaction time, oculomotor/oculovestibular function, and quality-of-life measures ranged from 0.28 to 0.74 with effect sizes from 0.01 to 0.38 (i.e., small to less than medium effects).
This investigation noted less than optimal reliability for most common and emerging concussion assessment tools. Despite this finding, their use is still necessitated by the absence of a gold standard diagnostic measure, with the ultimate goal of developing more refined and sound tools for clinical use. Clinical interpretation guidelines are provided for the clinician to apply with a degree of certainty in application.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 29 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,145,438
of 33,243,187 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#998
of 3,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,439
of 361,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#27
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,243,187 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 3,414 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 64.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 361,016 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
