English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Context: Neurocognitive testing is a recommended component in a concussion assessment. Clinicians should be aware of age and practice effects on these measures to ensure appropriate understanding of results. Objective: To assess age and practice effects on computerized and paper-and-pencil neurocognitive testing batteries in collegiate and high school athletes. Design: Cohort study. Setting: Classroom and laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: Participants consisted of 20 collegiate student-athletes (age  =  20.00 ± 0.79 years) and 20 high school student-athletes (age  =  16.00 ± 0.86 years). Main Outcome Measure(s): Hopkins Verbal Learning Test scores, Brief Visual-Spatial Memory Test scores, Trail Making Test B total time, Symbol Digit Modalities Test score, Stroop Test total score, and 5 composite scores from the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) served as outcome measures. Mixed-model analyses of variance were used to examine each measure. Results: Collegiate student-athletes performed better than high school student-athletes on ImPACT processing speed composite score (F1,38  =  5.03, P  =  .031) at all time points. No other age effects were observed. The Trail Making Test B total time (F2,66  =  73.432, P &amp;lt; .001), Stroop Test total score (F2,76  =  96.85, P  =  &amp;lt; .001) and ImPACT processing speed composite score (F2,76  =  5.81, P  =  .005) improved in test sessions 2 and 3 compared with test session 1. Intraclass correlation coefficient calculations demonstrated values ranging from 0.12 to 0.72. Conclusions: An athlete's neurocognitive performance may vary across sessions. It is important for clinicians to know the reliability and precision of these tests in order to properly interpret test scores.

Age-Related Differences and Reliability on Computerized and Paper-and-Pencil Neurocognitive Assessment Batteries