Division of Sports Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
The Micheli Center for Sports Injury Prevention, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Clin J Sport Med. 2022 Nov 1;32(6):e591-e597. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0000000000001061. Epub 2022 Jul 20.
To examine the relationships and latent factors within the Standardized Assessment of Reaction Time (StART), and between StART and current clinical assessments.
Cross-sectional study.
Clinical medicine facility.
Eighty-nine healthy collegiate student-athletes (63% male, age: 19.5 ± 0.9 years, 28% ≥1 concussion history).
Student-athletes completed StART and clinical assessments during preinjury testing.
Standardized Assessment of Reaction Time consisted of 3 conditions (standing, single-leg balance, cutting) under 2 cognitive states (single task and dual task) for 3 trials each condition. Clinical assessments were the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT) symptom checklist, Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC), tandem gait (single task and dual task), and Immediate PostConcussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT). We used Pearson- r correlation coefficients and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine relationships and latent factors between StART and clinical assessments.
Null to moderate correlations presented among the StART outcomes (r range: 0.06-0.70), and null to small correlations between StART and clinical assessments (r range: -0.16 to 0.34). The three-factor EFA for solely StART explained 70.6% total variance: functional movement (cutting), static dual-task (standing and single-leg balance), and static single task (standing and single-leg balance). The five-factor EFA for StART and clinical assessments explained 65.8% total variance: gait (single-task and dual-task tandem gait), functional movement (StART single-task and dual-task cutting), static dual-task (StART standing, single-leg balance), neurocognitive (ImPACT verbal memory, visual memory, visual-motor speed), and static single task (StART standing, single-leg balance). No other outcomes met the factor loading threshold.
StART displayed 3 distinct categories and had minimal redundancy within its subtests. StART did not meaningfully correlate with clinical assessments, suggesting that StART provides unique information by examining more functional, reactive movement.
研究标准化反应时评估（StART）中的关系和潜在因素，以及 StART 与当前临床评估之间的关系和潜在因素。
横断面研究。
临床医学设施。
89 名健康的大学生运动员（63%为男性，年龄：19.5±0.9 岁，28%有≥1 次脑震荡史）。
运动员在受伤前测试中完成了 StART 和临床评估。
标准化反应时评估由 3 种条件（站立、单腿平衡、切割）和 2 种认知状态（单任务和双任务）组成，每种条件下各进行 3 次试验。临床评估包括运动性脑震荡评估工具（SCAT）症状检查表、标准化脑震荡评估（SAC）、串联步态（单任务和双任务）和即刻脑震荡后评估和认知测试（ImPACT）。我们使用 Pearson- r 相关系数和探索性因子分析（EFA）来研究 StART 和临床评估之间的关系和潜在因素。
StART 结果之间呈零到中度相关（r 范围：0.06-0.70），StART 与临床评估之间呈零到小相关（r 范围：-0.16 到 0.34）。仅 StART 的三因子 EFA 解释了 70.6%的总方差：功能性运动（切割）、静态双重任务（站立和单腿平衡）和静态单任务（站立和单腿平衡）。StART 和临床评估的五因子 EFA 解释了 65.8%的总方差：步态（单任务和双任务串联步态）、功能性运动（StART 单任务和双任务切割）、静态双重任务（StART 站立、单腿平衡）、神经认知（ImPACT 言语记忆、视觉记忆、视觉运动速度）和静态单任务（StART 站立、单腿平衡）。没有其他结果符合因子负荷阈值。
StART 表现出 3 个不同的类别，其子测试之间几乎没有冗余。StART 与临床评估没有明显相关性，这表明 StART 通过检查更具功能性和反应性的运动提供了独特的信息。
