ArticleArchives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists2022
Test-Retest Reliability of Remote ImPACT Administration.
Article in Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Guide to the Interpretation and Reliability of Annual Collegiate ImPACT Baselines by Sex.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2026Article
- Minimal Detectable Change for the ImPACT Subtests at Baseline.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2024Article
- Reliability and Validity of Smartphone Cognitive Testing for Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Minimal Detectable Change for the ImPACT Test Administered Remotely.Journal of athletic training · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the performance and test-retest reliability obtained when administering a computerized baseline neurocognitive exam to NCAA Division I student-athletes in a controlled laboratory setting versus an uncontrolled remote location.
methodA sample of 129 (female = 100) Division I student-athletes completed Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) pre-season assessments for two distinct and respective sports seasons in a controlled laboratory environment and an uncontrolled remote environment. Depending on the environment, participants were given verbal (controlled) or written (uncontrolled) guidelines for taking the test.
resultsMultivariate repeated-measures ANOVA's determined that there were no within-subject differences between testing environments on ImPACT composite scores and cognitive efficiency index (CEI). The Chi-square test did not find any significant differences in impulse control or the number of invalid test scores, as determined by ImPACT, between environments. Intraclass correlations found the ImPACT subtest scores to range in test-retest reliability across testing environments, demonstrating moderate (verbal memory composite, r = 0.46; visual memory composite, r = 0.64; reaction time, r = 0.61; impulse control, r = 0.52; and CEI, r = 0.61) and good (visual motor composite, r = 0.77) test-retest reliability.
conclusionsResults indicate that ImPACT is reliable between controlled and uncontrolled testing environments. This further suggests that ImPACT can be administered in a remote environment, pending specific adherence to testing instructions, or in the event of social distancing or isolation policies.
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.