4.6 Article

Reliability and Normative Reference Values for the Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening (VOMS) Tool in Youth Athletes

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Volume 46, Issue 6, Pages 1475-1480

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0363546518756979

Keywords

concussion; baseline testing; vestibular; ocular motor; athletes

Funding

  1. Michigan State University College of Education
  2. Michigan State University Graduate School

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening (VOMS) measure is a newly developed vestibular and ocular motor symptom provocation screening tool for sport-related concussions. Baseline data, psychometric properties, and reliability of the VOMS are needed to further understand the applications of this tool, especially in the youth population, where research is scarce. Purpose: To establish normative data and document the internal consistency and false-positive rate of the VOMS in a sample of nonconcussed youth athletes. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 423 youth athletes (male = 278, female = 145) between the ages of 8 and 14 years completed baseline VOMS screening before the start of their respective sport seasons. Internal consistency was measured with Cronbach alpha and inter-item correlations. Results: Approximately 60% of youth athletes reported no symptom provocation on baseline VOMS assessment, with 9% to 13% scoring over the cutoff levels (score of >= 2 for any individual VOMS symptom, near point convergence distance of >= 5 cm). The VOMS displayed a high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = .97) at baseline among youth athletes. Conclusion: The current findings provide preliminary support for the implementation of VOMS baseline assessment into clinical practice, due to a high internal consistency, strong relationships between VOMS items, and a low false-positive rate at baseline in youth athletes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available