Preseason Baseline Neurocognitive Performances and Symptom Reporting on Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing: A Comparison of Adolescent Student-Athletes Tested in Spanish and English
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Student-athletes are commonly administered the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) battery at preseason baseline and postconcussion. The ImPACT is available in many languages, but few researchers have examined differences in cognitive performances and symptom ratings based on the language of administration. OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in ImPACT neurocognitive composites and symptom reporting at preseason baseline testing between student-athletes who completed ImPACT in Spanish versus English. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Preseason baseline testing for a high school concussion-management program in Maine. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Adolescent student-athletes who completed testing in Spanish (n = 169) and English (n = 169) were matched on age, gender, and health and academic history. Language groups were compared on each outcome for the full sample and for gender-stratified subsamples. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Neurocognitive composite scores and individual and total symptom severity ratings from the ImPACT battery. RESULTS: Athletes tested in Spanish displayed lower levels of neurocognitive performance on 2 of 5 composite scores (visual motor speed: P < .001, d = 0.51; reaction time: P = .004, d = 0.33) and reported greater symptom severity (P < .001, r = 0.21). When the analyses were stratified by gender, similar visual motor speed differences were observed between language groups among boys (P = .001, d = 0.49) and girls (P = .001, d = 0.49), whereas reaction time showed a larger group difference for boys (P = .012, d = 0.42) than for girls (P = .128, d = 0.21). Language-group differences in symptom reporting were similar for boys (P = .003, r = 0.22) and girls (P = .008, r = 0.21), with more frequent endorsement of physical and affective symptoms by athletes tested in Spanish. CONCLUSIONS: Language-group differences in total symptom severity were small (r = 0.21) and in neurocognitive performances were small to medium (d = 0.05-0.51). Versus previous authors who compared athletes tested in Spanish and English with ImPACT, we observed smaller effects, which may be attributable to close matching on variables related to neurocognitive performances and symptom reporting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".