Asken Breton M, Houck Zachary M, Bauer Russell M, Clugston James R
Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Department of Community Health and Family Medicine, University Athletic Association, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2020 Apr 20;35(3):291-301. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acz007.
The Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT), fifth Edition, Symptom Evaluation (S5SE) differs from previous versions by having examinees report trait (i.e. "typical" feelings) as opposed to state (i.e., "how you feel right now") concussion-like symptoms at baseline. This study assessed differences among, and convergent validity of, scores on the S5SE, SCAT3 Symptom Evaluation (S3SE), and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-18).
A total of 113 University of Florida varsity athletes completed symptom questionnaires on the same day in a counterbalanced administration. The final sample consisted of 94 participants (mean age ± SD = 18.4 ± 0.8 years, 57% male, 65% white) from 17 sports. We assessed convergent validity using Spearman rank-order correlations. Within-participant differences were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests. We qualitatively described free-response answers to the S5SE question that asks, "if not feeling 100%, why?".
S5SE total severity score demonstrated adequate convergent validity with both the S3SE (rho = .407, p < .001) and BSI-18 (rho = .432, p < .001). Domain-specific analyses indicated variable convergent validity (rho < 0.4 to rho > 0.6). Severity scores did not differ between the S3SE and S5SE (p = .500), but 24.5% of participants reported S3SE > S5SE and 34.0% S5SE > S3SE. Three themes emerged from qualitative examination of reasons for "not feeling 100%": (1) tiredness/sleep, (2) adjustment difficulties, and (3) academic/athletic stress.
Adequate convergent validity exists between SCAT5 and SCAT3 symptom severity in collegiate athletes. However, most examinees report different baseline symptom severity when asked to describe their trait (S5SE) versus state symptoms (S3SE). Clinicians should consider using the new SCAT5 Symptom Evaluation as a screening tool for identifying otherwise healthy or "undiagnosed" individuals who would benefit from targeted interventions.
《运动性脑震荡评估工具》（SCAT）第五版症状评估（S5SE）与先前版本的不同之处在于，它让受试者在基线时报告特质性（即“典型的”感受）而非状态性（即“你现在的感受”）的类似脑震荡症状。本研究评估了S5SE、SCAT3症状评估（S3SE）和简明症状量表（BSI - 18）得分之间的差异及收敛效度。
共有113名佛罗里达大学的大学运动员在同一天以平衡的方式完成了症状问卷。最终样本包括来自17项运动的94名参与者（平均年龄±标准差 = 18.4 ± 0.8岁，57%为男性，65%为白人）。我们使用斯皮尔曼等级相关评估收敛效度。使用威尔科克森符号秩检验分析参与者内部的差异。我们对S5SE中“如果感觉不是100%，为什么？”这个问题的自由回答进行了定性描述。
S5SE总严重程度得分与S3SE（rho = 0.407，p < 0.001）和BSI - 18（rho = 0.432，p < 0.001）均显示出足够的收敛效度。特定领域分析表明收敛效度存在差异（rho < 0.4至rho > 0.6）。S3SE和S5SE的严重程度得分没有差异（p = 0.500），但24.5%的参与者报告S3SE > S5SE，34.0%报告S5SE > S3SE。对“感觉不是100%”的原因进行定性检查时出现了三个主题：（1）疲劳/睡眠，（2）适应困难，（3）学业/运动压力。
在大学生运动员中，SCAT5和SCAT3症状严重程度之间存在足够的收敛效度。然而，大多数受试者在被要求描述其特质性症状（S5SE）与状态性症状（S3SE）时，报告的基线症状严重程度不同。临床医生应考虑将新的SCAT5症状评估作为一种筛查工具，用于识别那些可能从针对性干预中受益的原本健康或“未被诊断”的个体。
