Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2020
How Do ImPACT Quick Test Scores Compare with ImPACT Online Scores in Non-Concussed Adolescent Athletes?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Elbin R J, D'Amico Nathan R, McCarthy Matthew, Womble Melissa N, O'Connor Sydne, Schatz Philip
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare neurocognitive scores between the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) Quick Test (QT) and Online Versions in non-concussed high school athletes.
METHODS: A sample of 47 high school athletes completed the ImPACT Online Version pre-season and the ImPACT QT approximately 3 months later. Paired sample t-tests and Pearson's correlations examined differences and relationships between the ImPACT batteries.
RESULTS: The ImPACT QT scores were significantly higher for performance on the Three Letters: Average Counted (p < .001, d = .88), Three Letters: Average Counted Correctly (p < .001, d = .80), and Symbol Match: Correct RT Visible (p < .001, d = .72), and Symbol Match: Correct RT Hidden (p = .002, d = .50) subtests. There were significant relationships for Three Letters: Average Counted (r = .85, p < .001), Three Letters: Average Counted Correctly (r = .82, p < .001), and Symbol Match: Total Correct Hidden (r = .40, p = .006) subtests.
CONCLUSIONS: Post-injury evaluation data using ImPACT QT should be compared to normative referenced data, and not to pre-season data from the ImPACT Online Version.
METHODS: A sample of 47 high school athletes completed the ImPACT Online Version pre-season and the ImPACT QT approximately 3 months later. Paired sample t-tests and Pearson's correlations examined differences and relationships between the ImPACT batteries.
RESULTS: The ImPACT QT scores were significantly higher for performance on the Three Letters: Average Counted (p < .001, d = .88), Three Letters: Average Counted Correctly (p < .001, d = .80), and Symbol Match: Correct RT Visible (p < .001, d = .72), and Symbol Match: Correct RT Hidden (p = .002, d = .50) subtests. There were significant relationships for Three Letters: Average Counted (r = .85, p < .001), Three Letters: Average Counted Correctly (r = .82, p < .001), and Symbol Match: Total Correct Hidden (r = .40, p = .006) subtests.
CONCLUSIONS: Post-injury evaluation data using ImPACT QT should be compared to normative referenced data, and not to pre-season data from the ImPACT Online Version.