@article{ref1,
title="An updated review of the prevalence of invalid performance on the Immediate  Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT)",
journal="Clinical neuropsychologist, The",
year="2020",
author="Messa, Isabelle and Korcsog, Kassandra and Abeare, Christopher",
volume="ePub",
number="ePub",
pages="ePub-ePub",
abstract="OBJECTIVE: Performance validity assessment is an important component of concussion  baseline testing and Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) is the  most commonly used test in this setting. A review of invalid performance on ImPACT  was published in 2017, focusing largely on the default embedded validity indicator  (Default EVI) provided within the test. There has since been a proliferation in  research evaluating the classification accuracy of the Default EVI against  independently developed, alternative ImPACT-based EVIs, necessitating an updated  review. The purpose of this study was to provide an up-to-date review of the  prevalence of invalid performance on ImPACT and to examine the relative  effectiveness of ImPACT-based EVIs. <br><br>METHOD: Literature related to the prevalence of  invalid performance on ImPACT and the effectiveness of ImPACT-based EVIs, published  between January 2000 and May 2020, was critically reviewed. <br><br>RESULTS: A total of 23  studies reported prevalence of invalid performance at baseline testing using ImPACT. Six percent of baseline assessments were found to be invalid by the ImPACT's Default  EVI, and between 22.31% and 34.99% were flagged by alternative EVIs. Six studies  assessed the effectiveness of ImPACT-based EVIs, with the Default EVI correctly  identifying experimental malingerers only 60% of the time. Alternative ImPACT-based  EVIs identified between 73% and 100% of experimental malingerers. <br><br>CONCLUSIONS: The  ImPACT's Default EVI is not sufficiently sensitive, and clinicians should consider  alternative indicators when assessing invalid performance. Accordingly, the base  rate of invalid performance in athletes at baseline testing is likely well above the  6% previously reported.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1385-4046",
doi="10.1080/13854046.2020.1866676",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2020.1866676"
}