ArticleJournal of athletic training2023
Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change of 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- How much habituation is enough? An R application for ad hoc content-related limits of acceptance in behavioral research.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- 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
- Influential Factors and Preliminary Reference Data for a Clinically Feasible, Functional Reaction Time Assessment: 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextPostconcussion reaction time deficits are common, but existing assessments lack sport-related applicability. We developed the Standardized Assessment of Reaction Time (StART) tool to emulate the simultaneous cognitive and motor function demands in sport, but its reliability is unestablished.
objectivesTo determine the intrarater, interrater, and test-retest reliability of StART and to examine the dual-task effect, time effect, and relationships between StART and computerized and laboratory-based functional reaction time assessments.
designProspective cohort study.
settingClinical laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsTwenty healthy, physically active individuals (age = 20.3 ± 1.8 years, females = 12, no concussion history = 75%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants completed the StART, computerized reaction time (Stroop task via CNS Vital Signs), and laboratory-based jump landing and cutting reaction time under single-task and dual-task (subtracting by 6s or 7s) cognitive conditions at 2 testing sessions a median of 7 days apart. We used intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), repeated-measure analysis of variance, and Pearson r correlations to address our aims.
resultsOverall, good to strong interrater (ICC [2,k] range = 0.83-0.97), intrarater (ICC [3,k] range = 0.91-0.98), and test-retest (ICC [3,k] range = 0.69-0.89) reliability were observed. A significant reaction time assessment-by-cognitive condition interaction was present (P = .018, ηp2 = 0.14), with StART having the largest dual-task effect. Main time effects for dual-task conditions were seen across all reaction time assessments (mean difference = -25 milliseconds, P = .026, ηp2 = 0.08) with improved performance at the second testing session. No StART outcomes correlated with computerized reaction time (P > .05), although some correlated with single-task (r range = 0.42-0.65) and dual-task (r range = 0.19-0.50) laboratory cutting reaction time.
conclusionsThe StART demonstrated overall reliable performance relative to other reaction time measures. Reliability coupled with a strong dual-task effect indicates that StART is a valid measure for examining functional reaction time and may have future utility for sport-related concussion return-to-play decision-making.
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.