4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Who should conduct and interpret the neuropsychological assessment in sports-related concussion?

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 43, 期 -, 页码 I32-I35

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.058164

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This paper seeks to (i) describe the education and training of clinical neuropsychologists, (ii) discuss the significant differences between test administration and clinical assessment, (iii) outline the complex factors involved in psychometric test theory and test interpretation, and (iv) provide a framework for the role of clinical neuropsychologists in the interpretation and administration of neuropsychological instruments within the sports context. Design: Review of pertinent professional practice, empirical and theoretical literature. Intervention: Pubmed, Medline and Psych Info databases were reviewed. In total, 35 articles and 2 books were reviewed. Results: The decision to return an athlete to play following sports-related brain injury is complex and requires the analysis of several sources of data. The decision is determined by a team physician; ideally within the context of a multidisciplinary team that employs comprehensive concussion surveillance and management, including baseline and post-injury neuropsychological assessment. Neuropsychologists possess the training and skill sets necessary to provide unique expertise in the assessment of cognitive functioning and post-injury neurocognitive and psychological assessment. Conclusions: Baseline neuropsychological testing is a technical procedure that can be conducted by technicians under the supervision/guidance of a neuropsychologist. Post-injury assessment requires advanced neuropsychological expertise that is best provided by a clinical neuropsychologist. Significant international differences exist with respect to the training and availability of clinical neuropsychologists, which require modification of these views on a country by country basis.

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