ArticleJournal of athletic training2019
King-Devick Test Reliability in National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletes: A National Collegiate Athletic Association-Department of Defense Concussion Assessment, Research and Education Report.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Machine Learning Model for Post-Concussion Musculoskeletal Injury Risk in Collegiate Athletes.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Multifaceted concussion assessment battery: sensitivity at the expense of specificity?The Physician and sportsmedicine · 2025Article
- A Machine Learning Model for Post-Concussion Musculoskeletal Injury Risk in Collegiate Athletes.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Clinical Utility of Ocular Assessments in Sport-Related Concussion: A Scoping Review.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2024Article
- Baseline Normative and Test-Retest Reliability Data for Sideline Concussion Assessment Measures in Youth.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- In-Season Test-Retest Reliability of Visual Smooth-Pursuit (EyeGuide Focus) Baseline Assessment in Female and Male Field-Sport Athletes.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2024Article
- Neuro-ophthalmologic and blood biomarker responses in ADHD following subconcussive head impacts: a case-control trial.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Effect of Concussion on Reaction Time and Neurocognitive Factors: Implications for Subsequent Lower Extremity Injury.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2022Article
- One-year test-retest reliability of ten vision tests in Canadian athletes.F1000Research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextThe King-Devick (KD) test has received considerable attention in the literature as an emerging concussion assessment. However, important test psychometric properties remain to be addressed in large-scale independent studies.
objectiveTo assess (1) test-retest reliability between trials, (2) test-retest reliability between years 1 and 2, and (3) reliability of the 2 administration modes.
designCross-sectional study.
settingCollegiate athletic training facilities. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsA total of 3248 intercollegiate student-athletes participated in year 1 (male = 55.3%, age = 20.2 ± 2.3 years, height = 1.78 ± 0.11 m, weight = 80.7 ± 21.0 kg) and 833 participated in both years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Time, in seconds, to complete the KD error free. The KD test reliability was assessed between trials and between annual tests over 2 years and stratified by test modality (spiral-bound cards [n = 566] and tablet [n = 264]).
resultsThe KD test was reliable between trials (trial 1 = 43.2 ± 8.3 seconds, trial 2 = 40.8 ± 7.8 seconds; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] (2,1) = 0.888,
conclusionsThe KD test was reliable between trials and years and when stratified by modality. A small improvement of 2 seconds was identified with annual retesting, likely due to a practice effect; however, 27% of athletes displayed slowed performance from year 1 to year 2. These results suggest that the KD assessment was a reliable test with modest learning effects over time and that the assessment modality did not adversely affect baseline reliability.
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.