4.6 Article

Reproducibility of computer based neuropsychological testing among Norwegian elite football players

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 39, 期 -, 页码 I64-I69

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2005.019620

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Head injuries account for 4-22% of all football injuries. The rate of brain injuries is difficult to assess, due to the problem of defining and grading concussion. Thus computerised testing programs for cognitive function have been developed. Objective: To assess the reliability of a computerised neuropsychological test battery (CogSport) among Norwegian professional football players. Methods: Norwegian professional football league players (90.3% participation) performed two consecutive baseline Cogsport tests before the 2004 season. CogSport consists of seven different subtasks: simple reaction time (SRT), choice reaction time (ChRT), congruent reaction time (CgRT), monitoring (MON), one-back (OBK), matching (Match) and learning (Learn). Results: There was a small but significant improvement from repeated testing for the reaction time measurements of all seven subtasks (SRT: 0.7%, ChRT: 0.4%, CgRT: 1.2%, MON: 1.3%, OBK: 2.7%, Match: 2.0%, Learn: 1.1%). The coefficient of variation (CV) ranged from 1.0% to 2.7%; corresponding intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.45 (0.34 to 0.55) to 0.79 (0.74 to 0.84). The standard deviation data showed higher CVs, ranging from 3.7% (Learn) to 14.2% (SRT). Thus, the variance decreased wit increasing complexity of the task. The accuracy data displayed uniformly high CV (10.4-12.2) and corresponding low intraclass correlation coefficient (0.14 (0.01 to 0.26) to 0.31 (0.19 to 0.42)). Conclusion: The reproducibility for the mean reaction time measures was excellent, but less good for measures of accuracy and consistency. Consecutive testing revealed a slight learning effect from test 1 to test 2, and double baseline testing is recommended to minimise this effect.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据