Children's Attentional Skills 2 Years Post-Traumatic Brain Injury
Abstract
This study examined sustained attention abilities 24 months postinjury, in 3 groups of children who had suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI): (a). mild TBI (n = 24), (b). moderate TBI (n = 31), and (c). severe TBI (n = 14). Three manipulations of the traditional Continuous Performance Test paradigm (CPT) were employed in the study, to delineate factors that might influence CPT performance, including speed of processing, attentional lapses, and stimulus complexity. No significant differences were evident among the TBI groups on a measure of simple reaction time, nor on a CPT version where the interstimulus interval was lengthened. However, there was a significant difference between the mild and severe TBI groups on the most complex task, which required speed, accuracy, and decision making, suggesting that these factors underlie impaired performances previously identified on the CPT in children with severe TBI. These findings have implications for the development of intervention programs for these children.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The low-average mean performance on Fluid Cognition in the severe TBI group is typical of previous findings reporting neuropsychological outcomes in pediatric TBI.
“The low-average mean performance on Fluid Cognition in the sTBI group is typical of previous findings reporting neuropsychological outcomes in pediatric TBI (Anderson et al., 2012; Beauchamp et al., 2011; Catroppa & Anderson, 2003; Treble-Barna et al., 2017b).”
From Evaluating cognitive performance using the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognitive Battery in children with traumatic brain injury (2025) · cites this paper as Catroppa & Anderson, 2003
Cites
A continuous performance test of brain damage
Rosvold, H. E., Mirsky, A. F., Sarason, I., Bransome, E. D., & Beck, L. H. (1956) · Journal of Consulting Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0043220 · Cited by 2,261 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Petersen, B., Vo, N.-T. N., Anton, N., Yeates, K. O., & Treble-Barna, A. (2025) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s135561772510146x · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Catroppa, C., & Anderson, V.
- Affiliations
- Royal Children's Hospital (AU)
- Venue
- Developmental Neuropsychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-06
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 359-373
- ISSN
- 1532-6942 (ISSN-L)
- 8756-5641
- OpenAlex
- W2037673754
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Developmental Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Hospital Research Foundation
- Australian Research Council
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
- Keywords
- traumatic brain injury, children, sustained attention, mild traumatic brain injury, severe traumatic brain injury, moderate traumatic brain injury, continuous performance test, processing speed, attentional lapses, stimulus complexity, reaction time, decision-making, long-term outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Brain Injuries, Child, Child Behavior, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Intelligence, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Reaction Time, Severity of Illness Index, Task Performance and Analysis, Time Factors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review