Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6bnxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T10:50:21.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RETRACTED – Intra-individual Cognitive Variability: An Examination of ANAM4 TBI-MIL Simple Reaction Time Data from Service Members with and without Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2017

Wesley R. Cole ,
Emma Gregory ,
Jacques P. Arrieux  and
F. Jay Haran
Wesley R. Cole*
Affiliation:
Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, Silver Spring, Maryland and Fort Bragg, North Carolina Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg, North Carolina General Dynamics Health Solutions, Fairfax, Virginia
Emma Gregory
Affiliation:
Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, Silver Spring, Maryland and Fort Bragg, North Carolina General Dynamics Health Solutions, Fairfax, Virginia
Jacques P. Arrieux
Affiliation:
Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, Silver Spring, Maryland and Fort Bragg, North Carolina Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg, North Carolina General Dynamics Health Solutions, Fairfax, Virginia
F. Jay Haran
Affiliation:
Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to: Wesley R. Cole, Intrepid Spirit, Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg, NC 28310. E-mail: wesley.r.cole.ctr@mail.mil
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics 4 TBI-MIL (ANAM4) is a computerized cognitive test often used in post-concussion assessments with U.S. service members (SMs). Existing evidence, however, remains mixed regarding ANAM4’s ability to identify cognitive issues following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Studies typically examine ANAM4 by comparing mean scores to baseline or normative scores. A more fine-grained approach involves examining inconsistency within an individual’s performance. Methods: Data from a sample of 231 were healthy control SMs and 100 SMs within 7 days of mTBI who took the ANAM4 were included in analyses. We examine each individual’s performance on a simple reaction time (SRT) subtest that is administered at the beginning (SRT1) and end (SRT2) of the ANAM4 battery, and calculate the standard deviation of difference scores by trial across administrations. Results: Multivariate analysis of variance and univariate analyses revealed group differences across all comparisons (p<.001) with pairwise comparisons revealing higher intra-individual variability and slower raw reaction time for the mTBI group compared with controls. Effect sizes were small though exceeded the recommended minimum practical effect size (ES>0.41). Conclusions: While inconsistencies in performance are often viewed as noise or test error, the results suggest intra-individual cognitive variability may be more sensitive than central tendency measures (i.e., comparison of means) in detecting changes in cognitive function in mTBI. Additionally, the findings highlight the utility of ANAM4’s repeating a subtest at two points in a battery to explore within-subject differences in performance. (JINS, 2017, 23, 1–6)

Keywords

ConcussionMilitaryComputerized assessmentCognitive functionNeurocognitive assessment toolResponse consistency

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , May 2023 , pp. 415 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © INS. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adam, O., Mac Donald, C.L., Rivet, D., Ritter, J., May, T., Barefield, M., & Brody, D.L. (2015). Clinical and imaging assessment of acute combat mild traumatic brain injury in Afghanistan. Neurology, 85(3), 219–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arrieux, J.P., Cole, W.R., & Ahrens, A.P. (2017). A review of the validity of computerized neurocognitive assessment tools in mild traumatic brain injury assessment. Concussion, 2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleiberg, J., Garmoe, W.S., Halpern, E.L., Reeves, D.L., & Nadler, J.D. (1997). Consistency of within-day and across-day performance after mild brain injury. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 10(4), 247–253.Google ScholarPubMed
Cognitive Science Research Center, CSRC. (2014). ANAM military battery, administration manual. Norman, OK: CSRC.Google Scholar
Cole, W.R., Arrieux, J.P., Dennison, E.M., & Ivins, B.J. (2017). The impact of administration order in studies of computerized neurocognitive assessment tools (NCATs). Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 39(1), 35–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Defense Health Board. (2016). Review of the scientific evidence of using population normative values for post-concussive computerized neurocognitive assessments. Report prepared for the Undersecretary of Personnel and Readiness, Falls Church, VA: DHB.Google Scholar
Delis, D.C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J.H. (2001). Delis-Kapn Executive Function System (D-KEFS) technical manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6490.13. (2013). Comprehensive policy on traumatic brain injury-related neurocogitive assessments by the military services. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.Google Scholar
Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center. (2016). DoD worldwide numbers for TBI worldwide totals. Retrieved from http://dvbic.dcoe.mil/files/tbi-numbers/DoD-TBI-Worldwide-Totals_2000-2016_Q1_May-16-2016_v1.0_2016-06-24.pdf Google Scholar
Fjell, A.M., Rosquist, H., & Walhovd, K.B. (2009). Instability in the latency of P3a/P3b brain potentials and cognitive function in aging. Neurobiology of Aging, 30(12), 2065–2079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedl, K.E., Grate, S.J., Proctor, S.P., Ness, J.W., Lukey, B.J., & Kane, R.L. (2007). Army research needs for automated neuropsychologial tests: Monitoring soldier health and performance status. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C.J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 532–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haran, F.J., Alphonso, A.L., Creason, A., Campbell, J.S., Johnson, D., Young, E., & Tsao, J.W. (2016). Reliable change estimates for assessing recovery from concussion using the ANAM4 TBI-MIL. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 31(5), 329–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haran, F.J., Dretsch, M.N., Slaboda, J.C., Johnson, D.E., Adam, O.R., & Tsao, J.W. (2016). Comparison of baseline-referenced versus norm-referenced analytical approaches for in-theatre assessment of mild traumatic brain injury neurocognitive impairment. Brain Injury, 30(3), 280–286. doi: 10.3109/02699052.2015.1118766 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, B.D., Rohling, M.L., Boettcher, A.C., & Meyers, J.E. (2013). Cognitive intra-individual variability has a positive association with traumatic brain injury severity and suboptimal effort. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28(7), 640–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, M.P., Coldren, R.L., Parish, R.V., Dretsch, M.N., & Russell, M.L. (2012). Assessment of acute concussion in the combat environment. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27(4), 375–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovden, M., Li, S.C., Shing, Y.L., & Lindenberger, U. (2007). Within-person trial-to-trial variability precedes and predicts cognitive decline in old and very old age: Longitudinal data from the Berlin Aging Study. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2827–2838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Makdissi, M., Collie, A., Maruff, P., Darby, D.G., Bush, A., McCrory, P., & Bennell, K. (2001). Computerised cognitive assessment of concussed Australian Rules footballers. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 35(5), 354–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, J.E., & Arnett, P.A. (2015). Changes in symptoms in concussed and non-concussed athletes following neurochological assessment. Developmental Neuropsychology, 40(1), 24–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrea, M., Pliskin, N., Barth, J., Cox, D., Fink, J., French, L., & Powell, M. (2008). Official position of the Military TBI Task Force on the Role of Neuropsychology and Rehabilitation Psychology in the Evaluation, Management, and Research of Military Veterans with Traumatic Brain Injury: APPROVED by: American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) American Psychological Association Division 40 (Neuropsychology) American Psychological Association Division 22 (Rehabilitation Psychology) National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN). The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22(1), 10–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrory, P., Meeuwisse, W.H., Aubry, M., Cantu, B., Dvořák, J., Echemendia, R.J., & Sills, A. (2013). Consensus statement on concussion in sport: The 4th International Conference on Concussion in Sport held in Zurich, November 2012. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 47(5), 250–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, L.D., LaRoche, A.A., Pfaller, A.Y., Lerner, E.B., Hammeke, T.A., Randolph, C., & McCrea, M.A. (2016). Prospective, head-to-head study of three computerized neurocognitive assessment tools (CNTs): Reliability and validity for the assessment of sport-related concussion. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 22(1), 24–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norris, J.N., Carr, W., Herzig, T., Labrie, D.W., & Sams, R. (2013). ANAM4 TBI reaction time-based tests have prognostic utility for acute concussion. Military Medicine, 178(7), 767–774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parks, A.C., Moore, R.D., Wu, C.T., Broglio, S.P., Covassin, T., Hillman, C.H., & Pontifex, M.B. (2015). The association between a history of concussion and variability in behavioral and neuroelectric indices of cognition. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 98(3), 426–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rabinowitz, A.R., & Arnett, P.A. (2013). Intraindividual cognitive variability before and after sports-related concussion. Neuropsychology, 27(4), 481–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Resch, J.E., McCrea, M.A., & Cullum, C.M. (2013). Computerized neurocognitive testing in the management of sport-related concussion: An update. Neuropsychology Review, 23(4), 335–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roebuck-Spencer, T.M., Vincent, A.S., Gilliland, K., Johnson, D.R., & Cooper, D.B. (2013). Initial clinical validation of an embedded performance validity measure within the automated neuropsychological metrics (ANAM). Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28(7), 700–710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Segalowitz, S.J., Dywan, J., & Unsal, A. (1997). Attentional factors in response time variability after traumatic brain injury: An ERP study. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 3(2), 95–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silverberg, N.D., & Iverson, G.L. (2013). Is rest after concussion “the best medicine?”: Recommendations for activity reumption following concussion in athletes, civilians, and military service members. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 28(4), 250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnoff, J.J., Broglio, S.P., Hillman, C.H., & Ferrara, M.S. (2007). Concussion does not impact intraindividual response time variability. Neuropsychology, 21(6), 796–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuss, D.T., Stethem, L.L., Hugenholtz, H., Picton, T., Pivik, J., & Richard, M.T. (1989). Reaction time after head injury: Fatigue, divided and focused attention, and consistency of performance. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry, 52(6), 742–748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale 4th ed., San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar