Citation

Iverson GL, Schatz P. Brain Inj. 2014; 29(2): 263-275.

Affiliation

Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA , USA .

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.3109/02699052.2014.965214

PMID

25313596

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study examined seven topics relating to neuropsychological assessment following sport-related concussion: (i) traditional vs. computerized tests; (ii) the value of baseline, pre-season testing; (iii) invalid baseline scores and poor effort; (iv) when to assess following injury; (v) the reliability of neuropsychological tests; (vi) reliable change methodology; and (vii) new methods for identifying cognitive impairment. Main results: Baseline testing can be helpful for quantifying cognitive deficits following injury and for assessing recovery. At present, however, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that having baseline test results is clearly superior to not having baseline test results. Although invalid baseline test performance can be detected in some athletes, validity indicators cannot determine the extent to which the results were due to deliberately poor performance, confusion or misunderstanding regarding some aspect of the test, distractions in group testing environments or some combination of factors. When interpreting baseline and post-injury data, sophisticated psychometric methods (e.g. reliable change, multivariate base rates) are available to assist with more accurate identification of cognitive impairment and the serial monitoring of recovery.

CONCLUSIONS: The value of neuropsychological assessment in the management of sport-related concussion has a strong empirical foundation. Additional research is needed, however, to refine its use.

Language: en