Citation

Picha K, Quintana C, Glueck A, Hoch M, Heebner NR, Abt JP. J. Sport Rehab. 2018; 27(5): 1-4.

Affiliation

1 Sports Medicine Research Institute, College of Health Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, Human Kinetics Publishers)

DOI

10.1123/jsr.2018-0042

PMID

29809102

Abstract

CONTEXT: Reaction time (RT) is crucial to athletic performance. Therefore, when returning athletes to play following injury, it is important to evaluate RT characteristics ensuring a safe return. The Dynavision D2® system may be utilized as an assessment and rehabilitation aid in the determination of RT under various levels of cognitive load. Previous research has demonstrated good reliability of simple protocols when assessed following a 24-48 hour test-retest window. Expanding reliable test-retest intervals may further refine novel RT protocols for use as a diagnostic and rehabilitation tool.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the test-retest reliability of a battery of five novel RT protocols at different time intervals.

DESIGN: Repeated measures/reliability. SETTING: Interdisciplinary sports medicine research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty healthy individuals.

METHODS: Participants completed a battery of protocols increasing in difficulty in terms of reaction speed requirement and cognitive load. Prior to testing, participants were provided three familiarization trials. All protocols required participants to hit as many lights as quickly as possible in 60 seconds. After completing the initial testing session (Session 1), participants waited one hour before completing the second session (Session 2). Approximately two weeks later (average 14 ± 4 days), the participants completed the same battery of tasks for the third session (Session 3). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC), and repeated measures ANOVA were calculated for RT.

RESULTS: The ICC values for each of the five protocols illustrated good to excellent reliability between Session 1, 2 and 3 (0.75- 0.90). There were no significant differences across time points (F<0.105, p>0.05).

CONCLUSION: The 1-hour and 14-day test-retest intervals are reliable for clinical assessment, expanding the timeframes previously reported in the literature of when assessments can be completed reliably. This study provides novel protocols that challenge cognition in unique ways.

Language: en