Cited by 90Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchSports injuries and preventionCognitive Functions and Memory

Between-seasons test-retest reliability of clinically measured reaction time in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletes.

Open access
Eckner, James T., Kutcher, Jeffrey S., Richardson, James K.·2011·Journal of Athletic Training

Abstract

Context: Reaction time is typically impaired after concussion. A clinical test of reaction time (RT clin) that does not require a computer to administer may be a valuable tool to assist in concussion diagnosis and management. Objective: To determine the test-retest reliability of RT clin measured over successive seasons in competitive collegiate athletes and to compare these results with a computerized measure of reaction time (RT comp). Design: Case series with repeated measures. Setting: Preparticipation physical examinations for the football, women's soccer, and wrestling teams at a single university. Patients or Other Participants: 102 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletes. Intervention(s): The RT clin was measured using a measuring stick embedded in a weighted rubber disk that was released and caught as quickly as possible. The RT comp was measured using the simple reaction time component of CogState Sport. Main Outcome Measure(s): Data were collected at 2 time points, 1 season apart, during preparticipation physical examinations. Outcomes were mean simple RT clin and RT comp. Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient estimates from season 1 to season 2 were 0.645 for RT clin (n = 102, entire sample) and 0.512 for RT comp (n = 62 athletes who had 2 consecutive valid baseline CogState Sport test sessions). Conclusions: The test-retest reliability of RT clin over consecutive seasons compared favorably with that of a concurrently tested computerized measure of reaction time and with literature-based estimates of computerized reaction time measures. This finding supports the potential use of RT clin as part of a multifaceted concussion assessment battery. Further prospective study is warranted.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4085/1062-6050-46.4.409

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Delay-corrected SRT latencies were substantially shorter (213 and 220 ms in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively) than SRT latencies reported in other large-scale computer-based studies, but were similar to SRT latencies reported by Galton and contemporary researchers using non-computerized measures.

    “Delay-corrected SRT latencies were substantially shorter (213 and 220 ms in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively) than the SRT latencies reported in other large-scale computer-based studies, but were similar to the SRT latencies reported both by Galton (Johnson et al., 1985) and contemporary researchers using non-computerized measures (Eckner et al., 2011; Montare, 2013).”

    From Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time (2015) · cites this paper as Eckner et al., 2011

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Collie A, Maruff P, Darby D, Makdissi M, McCrory P, McStephen M. CogSport. In: Echemendia RJ, ed. Sports Neuropsychology: Assessment and Management of Traumatic Brain Injury. New York, NY: Guilford Publications; 2006:240-262.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eckner, J. T., Kutcher, J. S., & Richardson, J. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • *Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and
Venue
Journal of Athletic Training
Published
2011
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
409-414
ISSN
1062-6050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1806407055
Cited by
89
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Athletic Training (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Michigan (UL1 RR024986)
  • Foundation for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024986)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports injuries and prevention
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
reaction time, test-retest reliability, concussion assessment, collegiate athletes, pre-participation screening, intraclass correlation coefficient, football, women's football, wrestling
MeSH terms
Athletic Injuries, Brain Concussion, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Reaction Time, Reproducibility of Results, Athletes

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