Psychological and Neurobehavioral Associates, State College, PA 16801, USA.
Clin Neuropsychol. 2012;26(7):1077-91. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2012.721006. Epub 2012 Sep 25.
Neuropsychological tests have become commonplace in the assessment of sports-related concussion. Typically, post-injury test data are compared to pre-injury "baselines." Baseline testing can be expensive and logistically challenging, yet the usefulness of neuropsychological baseline testing has not been tested empirically. This paper examines the extent to which baseline testing is useful for detecting neurocognitive deficits following sports concussion in a college-age population. A total of 223 collegiate athletes from multiple sports who sustained concussions and had both baseline and post-injury testing using Immediate Post-concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) were included in the study. Reliable change (RC) in scores was determined by two approaches, the Jacobson and Truax (JT) and the Gulliksen-Lord-Novick (GLN) methods. The 90% confidence interval was used for both. Classification using these methods was compared to standard normative methods that compared post-concussion performance to baseline population means. Agreement between reliable change and normative methods was examined using Cohen's Kappa scores to determine whether post-injury scores alone could identify reliable cognitive decline. Mean time from concussion to post-injury testing was 3.40 days. The percentage of athletes who declined when using the JT method was similar to the percentage that would be expected to decline due to chance alone. Although the GLN and JT methods demonstrated moderate to substantial agreement, the GLN method consistently identified more cognitively compromised athletes than the JT method. Post-injury scores alone identified a significant majority of athletes with a reliable decline on ImPACT. Although preliminary and in need of replication across age groups and instruments, these findings suggest that the majority of collegiate athletes who experience clinically meaningful post-concussion cognitive decline can be identified without baseline data.
神经心理学测试在评估与运动相关的脑震荡中已变得普遍。通常,受伤后的测试数据与受伤前的“基线”进行比较。基线测试可能既昂贵又具有挑战性,但神经心理学基线测试的有用性尚未经过实证检验。本文研究了基线测试在多大程度上有助于检测大学生运动员群体在运动性脑震荡后的神经认知缺陷。共有 223 名来自多种运动的大学生运动员遭受脑震荡,使用即时脑震荡后评估和认知测试 (ImPACT) 进行了基线和受伤后测试。通过两种方法确定分数的可靠变化(RC),Jacobson 和 Truax (JT) 和 Gulliksen-Lord-Novick (GLN) 方法。两者均使用 90%置信区间。使用这些方法进行分类与比较受伤后表现与基线人群平均值的标准规范方法进行比较。使用 Cohen 的 Kappa 分数检查可靠变化和规范方法之间的一致性,以确定单独的受伤后分数是否可以识别可靠的认知下降。从脑震荡到受伤后测试的平均时间为 3.40 天。使用 JT 方法下降的运动员百分比与仅因机会而下降的百分比相似。尽管 GLN 和 JT 方法表现出中等至较大的一致性,但 GLN 方法始终比 JT 方法识别出更多认知受损的运动员。单独的受伤后分数就可以确定大多数 ImPACT 上具有可靠下降的运动员。尽管这些发现初步且需要在不同年龄组和仪器上进行复制,但它们表明,大多数经历临床意义上的脑震荡后认知下降的大学生运动员可以在没有基线数据的情况下被识别。