Background: The ImPACT (Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing) neurocognitive testing battery is a popular assessment tool used for concussion management. The stability of the baseline neurocognitive assessment is important for accurate comparisons between postconcussion and baseline neurocognitive performance. Psychometric properties of the recently released online version of ImPACT have yet to be established; therefore, research evaluating the reliability of this measure is warranted.
Purpose: The authors investigated the 1-year test-retest reliability of the ImPACT online version in a sample of high school athletes.
Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4
Methods: A total of 369 varsity high school athletes completed 2 mandatory preseason baseline cognitive assessments approximately 1 year apart as required by their respective athletics program. No diagnosed concussion occurred between assessments.
Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for ImPACT online indicated that motor processing speed (.85) was the most stable composite score, followed by reaction time (.76), visual memory (.70), and verbal memory (.62). Unbiased estimates of reliability were consistent with ICCs: motor processing speed (.85), reaction time (.76), visual memory (.71), and verbal memory (.62).
Conclusion: The online ImPACT baseline is a stable measure of neurocognitive performance across a 1-year time period for high school athletes. These reliability data for online ImPACT are higher than the 2-year ICCs previously reported from the desktop version.
Clinical Relevance: It is recommended that the ImPACT baseline assessment (both desktop and online) continue to be updated every 2 years. The online version of ImPACT appears to be a stable measure of neurocognitive performance over a 1-year period, and systematic evaluation of its stability over a 2-year period is warranted.
AlvesWMRimelRWNelsonWE. University of Virginia prospective study of football-induced minor head injury: status report. Clin Sports Med. 1987;6(1):211-218.
2.
AubryMCantuRDvorakJ. Summary and agreement statement of the 1st International Symposium on Concussion in Sport, Vienna 2001. Clin J Sports Med. 2002;12(1):6-11.
3.
BarrWB. Neuropsychological testing for assessment of treatment effects: methodologic issues. CNS Spectr. 2002;7(4):300-302, 304-306.
4.
BarthJTAlvesWRyanT. Mild head injury in sports: neuropsychological sequelae and recovery of function. In: LevinHEisenbergHBentonA, eds. Mild Head Injury. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1989:257-275.
CheluneGJNaugleRILüdersHSedlakJAwadIA. Individual change after epilepsy surgery: practice effects and base-rate information. Neuropsychology. 1993;7:41-52.
7.
ChicchettiDV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment. 1994;6(4):284-290.
8.
CollieADarbyDMaruffP. Computerised cognitive assessment of athletes with sports-related head injury. Br J Sports Med. 2001;35(5):297-302.
9.
CollieAMaruffPDarbyDMcStephenMG. The effects of practice on the cognitive test performance of neurologically normal individuals assessed at brief test-retest intervals. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2003;9(3):419-428.
10.
CrawfordJRGarthwaitePH. Comparing patients’ predicted test scores from a regression equation with their obtained scores: a significance test and point estimate of abnormality with accompanying confidence limits. Neuropsychology. 2006;20(3):259-271.
11.
FleishmanJBensonJ. Using LISREL to evaluate measurement models and scale reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1987;47:925-939.
12.
GuskiewiczKMBruceSLCantuR. Recommendations on management of sport-related concussion: summary of the National Athletic Trainers’ Association position statement. Neurosurgery. 2004;55(4):891-895.
13.
HuntTNFerraraMSMillerLSMacciocchiS. The effect of effort on baseline neuropsychological test scores in high school football athletes. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007;22(5):615-621.
14.
IversonGLBrooksBLCollinsMWLovellMR. Tracking neuropsychological recovery following concussion in sport. Brain Inj. 2006;20(3):245-252.
15.
IversonGLFranzenMLovellMRCollinsMW. Construct validity of computerized neuropsychological screening in athletes with concussion. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2004;19:961-962.
16.
IversonGLLovellMRCollinsMW. Interpreting change in ImPACT following sport concussion. Clin Neuropsychol. 2003;17(4):460-467.
JacobsonNSTruaxP. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59(1):12-19.
19.
LovellMR. ImPACT online version: what are the similarities and differences between the desktop version and the online version?Available at: http://impacttest.com/faq#faq_71. Accessed July 8, 2011.
20.
LovellMRCollinsMWFuFBurkeCPodellK. Neuropsychologic testing in sports: past, present, and future. Br J Sports Med. 2001;35:367-372.
21.
MaruffPCollieAAndersonVMollicaCMcStephenMMcCroryP. Cognitive development in children: implications for concussion management. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38:654-655.
22.
McCreaMBarrWBGuskiewiczK. Standard regression-based methods for measuring recovery after sport-related concussion. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2005;11(1):58-69.
23.
McCroryPCollieAAndersonVDavisG. Can we manage sport related concussion in children the same as in adults?Br J Sports Med. 2004;38(5):516-519.
24.
McCroryPJohnstonKMeeuwisseW. Summary and agreement statement of the 2nd International Conference on Concussion in Sport, Prague 2004. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(4):196-204.
25.
McCroryPMeeuwisseWJohnstonK. Consensus statement on concussion in sport: the 3rd International Conference on Concussion in Sport held in Zurich, November 2008. J Athl Train. 2009;44:434-448.
26.
MillerJRAdamsonGJPinkMMSweetJC. Comparison of preseason, midseason, and postseason neurocognitive scores in uninjured collegiate football players. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35:1284-1288.
27.
MoserRSIversonGLEchemendíaRJ. Neuropsychological evaluation in the diagnosis and management of sports-related concussion. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007;22:909-916.
28.
RodgersJLNicewanderWA. Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. The American Statistician. 1998;42:59-66.
29.
SchatzP. Long-term test-retest reliability of baseline cognitive assessments using ImPACT. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38:47-53.
30.
SchatzPMoserRSSolomonGSOttSDKarpfR. Incidence of invalid computerized baseline neurocognitive test results in high school and college students. J Athl Train. In press.
31.
SchatzPPardiniJELovellMRCollinsMWPodellK. Sensitivity and specificity of the ImPACT Test Battery for concussion in athletes. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2006;21(1):91-99.
32.
SchatzPZillmerEA. Computer-based assessment of sports-related concussion. Appl Neuropsychol. 2003;10(1):42-47.
33.
ValovichTCPerrinDHGansnederBM. Repeat administration elicits a practice effect with the balance error scoring system but not with the standardized assessment of concussion in high school athletes. J Athl Train. 2003;38:51-56.
34.
WilkCMGoldJMBartkoJJDickersonF. Test-retest stability of the repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159(5):838-844.
