↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
A Normative Reference vs. Baseline Testing Compromise for ImPACT: The CARE Consortium Multiple Variable Prediction (CARE-MVP) Norms
Published in
Sports Medicine, February 2020
DOI 10.1007/s40279-020-01263-2
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Sports medicine clinicians routinely use computerized neurocognitive testing in sport-related concussion management programs. Debates continue regarding the appropriateness of normative reference comparisons versus obtaining individual baseline assessments, particularly for populations with greater likelihood of having below- or above-average cognitive abilities. Improving normative reference methods could offer alternatives to perceived logistical and financial burdens imposed by universal baseline testing. To develop and validate the Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education (CARE) Consortium Multiple Variable Prediction (MVP) norms for the Immediate Postconcussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT). We developed the CARE-MVP norms for ImPACT composite scores using regression-based equations. Predictor variables included sex, race (white/Caucasian, black/African American, Asian, or Multiple Races), medical history [attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disorder (LD), prior concussion(s), prior psychiatric diagnosis], and an estimate of premorbid intellect (Wechsler Test of Adult Reading). CARE-MVP norms were first validated in an independent sample of healthy collegiate athletes by comparing predicted and actual baseline test scores using independent-samples t-tests and Cohen's d effect sizes. We then evaluated base rates of low scores in athletes self-reporting ADHD/LD (vs. non-ADHD/LD) and black/African American race (vs. white/Caucasian) across multiple normative reference methods (Chi square, Cramer's V effect size). Lastly, we validated the CARE-MVP norms in a concussed sample (dependent samples t test, Cohen's d effect size). A total of 5233 collegiate athletes (18.8 ± 1.2 years, 70.5% white/Caucasian, 39.1% female) contributed to the CARE-MVP norms (development N = 2616; internal validation N = 2617). Race and WTAR score were the strongest and most consistent ImPACT score predictors. There were negligible mean differences between observed and predicted (CARE-MVP) baseline scores (Cohen's d < 0.1) for all ImPACT composite scores except Reaction Time (predicted ~ 20 ms faster than observed, d = - 0.28). Low score base rates were similar for athletes across subpopulations when using CARE-MVP norms (ADHD/LD, V = 0.017-0.028; black/African American, V = 0.043-0.053); while, other normative reference methods resulted in disproportionately higher rates of low scores (ADHD/LD, V = 0.062-0.101; black/African American race, V = 0.163-0.221). Acute (24-48 h) postconcussion ImPACT scores were significantly worse than CARE-MVP norms but notably varied as a function of concussion symptom severity. Results support CARE-MVP norm use in populations typically underrepresented or not adjusted for in traditional normative reference samples, such as those self-reporting ADHD/LD or black/African American race. CARE-MVP norms improve upon prior normative methods and may offer a practical, simple alternative for collegiate institutions concerned about logistical and financial burden associated with baseline testing. An automated scoring program is provided.

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 profiles of 10 X users 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 116 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 %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 14%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 55 47%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 10%
Sports and Recreations 6 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 63 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 15 March 2021.
All research outputs
#5,711,883
of 27,578,965 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#2,092
of 3,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,197
of 481,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#29
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,578,965 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 59.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 481,735 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.