Kristin Wilmoth, Benjamin L Brett, Natalie A Emmert, Carolyn M Cook, Jeffrey Schaffert, Todd Caze, Thomas Kotsonis, Margaret Cusick, Gary Solomon, Jacob E Resch, C Munro Cullum, Lindsay D Nelson, Michael McCrea
{"title":"用于评估运动性脑震荡的计算机化认知工具和标准神经心理学测试的心理计量特性：系统回顾","authors":"Kristin Wilmoth, Benjamin L Brett, Natalie A Emmert, Carolyn M Cook, Jeffrey Schaffert, Todd Caze, Thomas Kotsonis, Margaret Cusick, Gary Solomon, Jacob E Resch, C Munro Cullum, Lindsay D Nelson, Michael McCrea","doi":"10.1007/s11065-022-09553-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Athletic programs are more frequently turning to computerized cognitive tools in order to increase efficiencies in concussion assessment. However, assessment using a traditional neuropsychological test battery may provide a more comprehensive and individualized evaluation. Our goal was to inform sport clinicians of the best practices for concussion assessment through a systematic literature review describing the psychometric properties of standard neuropsychological tests and computerized tools. We conducted our search in relevant databases including Ovid Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Journal articles were included if they evaluated psychometric properties (e.g., reliability, sensitivity) of a cognitive assessment within pure athlete samples (up to 30 days post-injury). Searches yielded 4,758 unique results. Ultimately, 103 articles met inclusion criteria, all of which focused on adolescent or young adult participants. Test-retest reliability estimates ranged from .14 to .93 for computerized tools and .02 to .95 for standard neuropsychological tests, with strongest correlations on processing speed tasks for both modalities, although processing speed tasks were most susceptible to practice effects. Reliability was improved with a 2-factor model (processing speed and memory) and by aggregating multiple baseline exams, yet remained below acceptable limits for some studies. Sensitivity to decreased cognitive performance within 72 h of injury ranged from 45%-93% for computerized tools and 18%-80% for standard neuropsychological test batteries. The method for classifying cognitive decline (normative comparison, reliable change indices, regression-based methods) affected sensitivity estimates. Combining computerized tools and standard neuropsychological tests with the strongest psychometric performance provides the greatest value in clinical assessment. To this end, future studies should evaluate the efficacy of hybrid test batteries comprised of top-performing measures from both modalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychometric Properties of Computerized Cognitive Tools and Standard Neuropsychological Tests Used to Assess Sport Concussion: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Kristin Wilmoth, Benjamin L Brett, Natalie A Emmert, Carolyn M Cook, Jeffrey Schaffert, Todd Caze, Thomas Kotsonis, Margaret Cusick, Gary Solomon, Jacob E Resch, C Munro Cullum, Lindsay D Nelson, Michael McCrea\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11065-022-09553-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Athletic programs are more frequently turning to computerized cognitive tools in order to increase efficiencies in concussion assessment. However, assessment using a traditional neuropsychological test battery may provide a more comprehensive and individualized evaluation. Our goal was to inform sport clinicians of the best practices for concussion assessment through a systematic literature review describing the psychometric properties of standard neuropsychological tests and computerized tools. We conducted our search in relevant databases including Ovid Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Journal articles were included if they evaluated psychometric properties (e.g., reliability, sensitivity) of a cognitive assessment within pure athlete samples (up to 30 days post-injury). Searches yielded 4,758 unique results. Ultimately, 103 articles met inclusion criteria, all of which focused on adolescent or young adult participants. Test-retest reliability estimates ranged from .14 to .93 for computerized tools and .02 to .95 for standard neuropsychological tests, with strongest correlations on processing speed tasks for both modalities, although processing speed tasks were most susceptible to practice effects. Reliability was improved with a 2-factor model (processing speed and memory) and by aggregating multiple baseline exams, yet remained below acceptable limits for some studies. Sensitivity to decreased cognitive performance within 72 h of injury ranged from 45%-93% for computerized tools and 18%-80% for standard neuropsychological test batteries. The method for classifying cognitive decline (normative comparison, reliable change indices, regression-based methods) affected sensitivity estimates. Combining computerized tools and standard neuropsychological tests with the strongest psychometric performance provides the greatest value in clinical assessment. To this end, future studies should evaluate the efficacy of hybrid test batteries comprised of top-performing measures from both modalities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49754,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuropsychology Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuropsychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-022-09553-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/8/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-022-09553-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Psychometric Properties of Computerized Cognitive Tools and Standard Neuropsychological Tests Used to Assess Sport Concussion: A Systematic Review.
Athletic programs are more frequently turning to computerized cognitive tools in order to increase efficiencies in concussion assessment. However, assessment using a traditional neuropsychological test battery may provide a more comprehensive and individualized evaluation. Our goal was to inform sport clinicians of the best practices for concussion assessment through a systematic literature review describing the psychometric properties of standard neuropsychological tests and computerized tools. We conducted our search in relevant databases including Ovid Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Journal articles were included if they evaluated psychometric properties (e.g., reliability, sensitivity) of a cognitive assessment within pure athlete samples (up to 30 days post-injury). Searches yielded 4,758 unique results. Ultimately, 103 articles met inclusion criteria, all of which focused on adolescent or young adult participants. Test-retest reliability estimates ranged from .14 to .93 for computerized tools and .02 to .95 for standard neuropsychological tests, with strongest correlations on processing speed tasks for both modalities, although processing speed tasks were most susceptible to practice effects. Reliability was improved with a 2-factor model (processing speed and memory) and by aggregating multiple baseline exams, yet remained below acceptable limits for some studies. Sensitivity to decreased cognitive performance within 72 h of injury ranged from 45%-93% for computerized tools and 18%-80% for standard neuropsychological test batteries. The method for classifying cognitive decline (normative comparison, reliable change indices, regression-based methods) affected sensitivity estimates. Combining computerized tools and standard neuropsychological tests with the strongest psychometric performance provides the greatest value in clinical assessment. To this end, future studies should evaluate the efficacy of hybrid test batteries comprised of top-performing measures from both modalities.
期刊介绍：
Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
