The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation · 2021
Introducing the ImPACT-5: An Empirically Derived Multivariate Validity Composite.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Erdodi Laszlo, Korcsog Kassandra, Considine Ciaran, Casey Joseph, Scoboria Alan, Abeare Christopher
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To create novel Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT)-based embedded validity indicators (EVIs) and to compare the classification accuracy to 4 existing EVIImPACT.
METHOD: The ImPACT was administered to 82 male varsity football players during preseason baseline cognitive testing. The classification accuracy of existing EVIImPACT was compared with a newly developed index (ImPACT-5A and B). The ImPACT-5A represents the number of cutoffs failed on the 5 ImPACT composite scores at a liberal cutoff (0.85 specificity); ImPACT-5B is the sum of failures on conservative cutoffs (≥0.90 specificity).
RESULTS: ImPACT-5A ≥1 was sensitive (0.81), but not specific (0.49) to invalid performance, consistent with EVIImPACT developed by independent researchers (0.68 sensitivity at 0.73-0.75 specificity). Conversely, ImPACT-5B ≥3 was highly specific (0.98), but insensitive (0.22), similar to Default EVIImPACT (0.04 sensitivity at 1.00 specificity). ImPACT-5A ≥3 or ImPACT-5B ≥2 met forensic standards of specificity (0.91-0.93) at 0.33 to 0.37 sensitivity. Also, the ImPACT-5s had the strongest linear relationship with clinically meaningful levels of invalid performance of existing EVIImPACT.
CONCLUSIONS: The ImPACT-5s were superior to the standard EVIImPACT and comparable to existing aftermarket EVIImPACT, with the flexibility to optimize the detection model for either sensitivity or specificity. The wide range of ImPACT-5 cutoffs allows for a more nuanced clinical interpretation.
METHOD: The ImPACT was administered to 82 male varsity football players during preseason baseline cognitive testing. The classification accuracy of existing EVIImPACT was compared with a newly developed index (ImPACT-5A and B). The ImPACT-5A represents the number of cutoffs failed on the 5 ImPACT composite scores at a liberal cutoff (0.85 specificity); ImPACT-5B is the sum of failures on conservative cutoffs (≥0.90 specificity).
RESULTS: ImPACT-5A ≥1 was sensitive (0.81), but not specific (0.49) to invalid performance, consistent with EVIImPACT developed by independent researchers (0.68 sensitivity at 0.73-0.75 specificity). Conversely, ImPACT-5B ≥3 was highly specific (0.98), but insensitive (0.22), similar to Default EVIImPACT (0.04 sensitivity at 1.00 specificity). ImPACT-5A ≥3 or ImPACT-5B ≥2 met forensic standards of specificity (0.91-0.93) at 0.33 to 0.37 sensitivity. Also, the ImPACT-5s had the strongest linear relationship with clinically meaningful levels of invalid performance of existing EVIImPACT.
CONCLUSIONS: The ImPACT-5s were superior to the standard EVIImPACT and comparable to existing aftermarket EVIImPACT, with the flexibility to optimize the detection model for either sensitivity or specificity. The wide range of ImPACT-5 cutoffs allows for a more nuanced clinical interpretation.