ArticleJournal of athletic training2023
Influential Factors and Preliminary Reference Data for a Clinically Feasible, Functional Reaction Time Assessment: The Standardized Assessment of Reaction Time.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Revealing gender differences in concussion reporting: a detailed analysis of SCAT assessment self-report symptom ratings.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Initial Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Characteristics and Recovery Patterns Among Females Across the United States Military Service Academies: A Report from the NCAA-DoD CARE Consortium.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- Female Collegiate Athletes' Concussion Characteristics and Recovery Patterns: A Report from the NCAA-DoD CARE Consortium.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- Investigating the association between the lunar cycle and sleep, physiological, cognitive, and physical performance in children with Down syndrome.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change of the Standardized Assessment of Reaction Time.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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
contextClinical reaction-time (RT) measures are frequently used when examining patients with concussion but do not correlate with functional movement RT. We developed the Standardized Assessment of RT (StART) to emulate the rapid cognitive demands and whole-body movement needed in sport.
objectiveTo assess StART differences across 6 cognitive-motor combinations, examine potential demographic and health history confounders, and provide preliminary reference data for healthy collegiate student-athletes.
designProspective, cross-sectional study.
settingClinical medicine facilities. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsA total of 89 student-athletes (56 [62.9%] men, 33 [37.1%] women; age = 19.5 ± 0.9 years, height = 178.2 ± 21.7 cm, mass = 80.4 ± 24 kg; no concussion history = 64 [71.9%]). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Student-athletes completed health history questionnaires and StART during preseason testing. The StART consisted of 3 movements (standing, single-legged balance, and cutting) under 2 cognitive states (single task and dual task [subtracting by 6's or 7's]) for 3 trials under each condition. The StART trials were calculated as milliseconds between penlight illumination and initial movement. We used a 3 × 2 repeated-measures analysis of variance with post hoc t tests and 95% CIs to assess StART cognitive and movement differences, conducted univariable linear regressions to examine StART performance associations, and reported StART performance as percentiles.
resultsAll StART conditions differed (P ≤ .03), except single-task standing versus single-task single-legged balance (P = .36). Every 1-year age increase was associated with an 18-millisecond (95% CI = 8, 27 milliseconds) slower single-task cutting RT (P < .001). Female athletes had slower single-task (15 milliseconds; 95% CI = 2, 28 milliseconds; P = .02) and dual-task (28 milliseconds; 95% CI = 2, 55 milliseconds; P = .03) standing RT than male athletes. No other demographic or health history factors were associated with any StART condition (P ≥ .056).
conclusionsThe StART outcomes were unique across each cognitive-motor combination, suggesting minimal subtest redundancy. Only age and sex were associated with select outcomes. The StART composite scores may minimize confounding factors, but future researchers should consider age and sex when providing normative data.
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.