Skip to main content
main-content

14.11.2017 | Original Research Article | Ausgabe 5/2018 Open Access

Sports Medicine 5/2018

Test-Retest Reliability and Interpretation of Common Concussion Assessment Tools: Findings from the NCAA-DoD CARE Consortium

Zeitschrift:
Sports Medicine > Ausgabe 5/2018
Autoren:
Steven P. Broglio, Barry P. Katz, Shi Zhao, Michael McCrea, Thomas McAllister, CARE Consortium Investigators
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40279-017-0813-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The original version of this article was revised due to a retrospective Open Access order.
Individual authors are identified in the Acknowledgements. This article is part of the Topical Collection on The NCAA-DoD Concussion Assessment, Research and Education (CARE) Consortium.
A correction to this article is available online at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40279-018-0906-4.

Abstract

Background

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.

Objective

To evaluate the test-retest reliability of commonly implemented and emerging concussion assessment tools across a large nationally representative sample of student-athletes.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de. Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Zusatzmaterial
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 26 kb)
40279_2017_813_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2018

Sports Medicine 5/2018Zur Ausgabe
  1. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise