Objective: Poor effort during baseline testing may obscure later detection of concussions. The Rey Dot Counting Test, a commonly used tool for effort assessment, was examined for any biases in a sample of NCAA Division II athletes. Method: 355 college student-athletes (66% males) representing 18 teams and 11 sports were studied. Average age was 19.7 (SD = 1.35; range = 17–24); average years of education was 13.5 (SD = 1.19; range 12–17).Participants were asked to count the number of dots on 12 cards, 6 cards each with unorganized and organized dots, as quickly as possible. Results: Mean counting time was 5.20s (SD = 1.13s) for unorganized dots, 2.23s (SD = .79) for organized dots. Mean total response errors were 1.74 (SD = 1.43), mean ratio of organized to unorganized dot counting time was 1:2.54s (SD = .83s). Mean combination score (sum of averaged times and errors) was 9.25 (SD = 2.23). Age, gender, years in college, number of previous concussions, time since most recent concussion, and domestic or international students were examined for interaction effects. Only years of education had a mild correlation with total ungrouped (r¬= −.12, p= .022) and average ungrouped time (r = −.11, p= .035). MANOVA tests revealed significant group differences between education levels and total ungrouped time (F = 3.305, p = .006) and average ungrouped time (F = 3.311, p = .006). Tukey's HSD revealed a difference only between13 and 14 years of education in both total and averaged ungrouped times (p = .039; p = .039). Conclusion: The DCT was minimally sensitive to several demographic variables, lending support to the DCT as a neutral, non-verbal test of effort during baseline evaluation, not requiring specific sub-sample norms.
Exploring Group Differences in the Rey Dot Counting Test among College Student-Athletes
C Salazar, G Gonzalez, D Vagt, N Starr, A Carlson, T Vallejo-Luces, K Mulligan, F Webbe; A-76
Exploring Group Differences in the Rey Dot Counting Test among College Student-Athletes. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2015; 30 (6): 513-514. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acv047.76
Download citation file:
© 2017 Oxford University Press×