ArticleArchives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists2026
A Guide to the Interpretation and Reliability of Annual Collegiate ImPACT Baselines by Sex.
Article in Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo create a sex-specific clinicians guide to evaluating significant immediate post-concussion assessment and cognitive testing (ImPACT) score changes using minimal detectable change (MDC) ranges, to evaluate the sex-specific test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and to compare male and female performance across all composite and subtest scores.
methodData from 390 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletes (n = 390; male = 106, female = 284) across four athletic seasons (2020-2021 through 2024-2025) who had completed ImPACT remotely for two consecutive seasons were used to calculate the MDC and ICC at the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by sex, as well as to compare sex-based performance for all ImPACT scores (subtest and composite).
resultsThe visual memory composite score, as well as the subtests of design memory correct distractors (immediate), design memory hits (delay), XO total correct memory, XO total correct (interference), XO average correct reaction time (RT; interference), symbol match total correct RT (visible), and color match total correct, exhibited significant differences between males and females at the first and/or second remote time point. ICCs for females demonstrated poor reliability on 14 of the 33 subtest scores (ICC = 0.06-0.49) and on the visual memory composite score (ICC = 0.49). For males, 11 of the 33 subtests had poor reliability (ICC = 0.21-0.48). Many of the subtests present poor reliability for both genders, particularly as it relates to the three letters task.
conclusionsThis study found sex differences on ImPACT performance, suggesting that sex-specific MDC values are needed to evaluate significant changes in ImPACT scores. Additionally, this study found several ImPACT subtest scores to be unreliable, suggesting only moderate to good scores be used in clinical evaluation.
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.