Citation

Abeare CA, Messa I, Whitfield C, Zuccato B, Casey J, Rykulski N, Erdodi L. J. Head Trauma Rehabil. 2019; 34(4): E20-E31.

Affiliation

Department of Psychology, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada (Drs Abeare, Casey, and Erdodi and Mss Messa and Whitfield, and Mr Zuccato); and Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, East Lansing (Mr Rykulski).

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins)

DOI

10.1097/HTR.0000000000000451

PMID

30499932

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of invalid performance on baseline neurocognitive testing using embedded measures within computerized tests and individually administered neuropsychological measures, and to examine the influence of incentive status and performance validity on neuropsychological test scores. SETTING: Sport-related concussion management program at a regionally accredited university. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 83 collegiate football athletes completing their preseason baseline assessment within the University's concussion management program and a control group of 140 nonathlete students.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional design based on differential incentive status: motivated to do poorly to return to play more quickly after sustaining a concussion (athletes) versus motivated to do well due to incentivizing performance (students). MAIN MEASURES: Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT), performance validity tests, and measures of cognitive ability.

RESULTS: Half of the athletes failed at least 1 embedded validity indicator within ImPACT (51.8%), and the traditional neuropsychological tests (49.4%), with large effects for performance validity on cognitive test scores (d: 0.62-1.35), incentive status (athletes vs students; d: 0.36-1.15), and the combination of both factors (d: 1.07-2.20) on measures of attention and processing speed.

CONCLUSION: Invalid performance on baseline assessment is common (50%), consistent across instruments (ImPACT or neuropsychological tests) and settings (one-on-one or group administration), increases as a function of incentive status (risk ratios: 1.3-4.0) and results in gross underestimates of the athletes' true ability level, complicating the clinical interpretation of the postinjury evaluation and potentially leading to premature return to play.

Language: en