ArticleJAMA neurology2018
Prevalence of Invalid Performance on Baseline Testing for Sport-Related Concussion by Age and Validity Indicator.
Article in JAMA neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychometric Properties of Computerized Cognitive Tools and Standard Neuropsychological Tests Used to Assess Sport Concussion: A Systematic Review.Neuropsychology review · 2023Pooled it
- The effects of serial assessment using the trail making test in elite rugby league players.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2026Article
- Normative Data for Single- and Dual-Task Tandem Gait Performance in Collegiate Athletes.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder as a Mediating Variable for Invalid Baseline Profiles on the ImPACT.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Experiences of Adversity and Validity of Baseline Concussion Testing.Journal of athletic training · 2024Article
- Multivariate Models of Performance Validity: The Erdodi Index Captures the Dual Nature of Non-Credible Responding (Continuous and Categorical).Assessment · 2023Article
- Investigating the psychometric properties of the Suicide Stroop Task.Psychological assessment · 2019Article
- Student athlete concussions and postconcussion syndrome: ADHD as a risk factor.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2018Article
- Sport concussion and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in student athletes: A cohort study.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Estimated base rates of invalid performance on baseline testing (base rates of failure) for the management of sport-related concussion range from 6.1% to 40.0%, depending on the validity indicator used. The instability of this key measure represents a challenge in the clinical interpretation of test results that could undermine the utility of baseline testing. Objectives: To determine the prevalence of invalid performance on baseline testing and to assess whether the prevalence varies as a function of age and validity indicator. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, cross-sectional study included data collected between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016, from a clinical referral center in the Midwestern United States. Participants included 7897 consecutively tested, equivalently proportioned male and female athletes aged 10 to 21 years, who completed baseline neurocognitive testing for the purpose of concussion management. Interventions: Baseline assessment was conducted with the Immediate Postconcussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT), a computerized neurocognitive test designed for assessment of concussion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Base rates of failure on published ImPACT validity indicators were compared within and across age groups. Hypotheses were developed after data collection but prior to analyses. Results: Of the 7897 study participants, 4086 (51.7%) were male, mean (SD) age was 14.71 (1.78) years, 7820 (99.0%) were primarily English speaking, and the mean (SD) educational level was 8.79 (1.68) years. The base rate of failure ranged from 6.4% to 47.6% across individual indicators. Most of the sample (55.7%) failed at least 1 of 4 validity indicators. The base rate of failure varied considerably across age groups (117 of 140 [83.6%] for those aged 10 years to 14 of 48 [29.2%] for those aged 21 years), representing a risk ratio of 2.86 (95% CI, 2.60-3.16; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The results for base rate of failure were surprisingly high overall and varied widely depending on the specific validity indicator and the age of the examinee. The strong age association, with 3 of 4 participants aged 10 to 12 years failing validity indicators, suggests that the clinical interpretation and utility of baseline testing in this age group is questionable. These findings underscore the need for close scrutiny of performance validity indicators on baseline testing across age groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.