The reliability and validity of brief cognitive screening tools used in traumatic brain injury: A systematic review

Figures & data

Table 1. Examples of permitted psychometric qualities, designs, and statistics.

Psychometric Design	Description	Examples of recorded outcomes
Structural Validity	The degree to which the scores of the cognitive screening tool are an adequate reflection of the dimensionality of the construct to be measured.	See COSMIN manual for full list of structural validity outcomes (pp. 28–29; Mokkink et al., 2018)
Internal Consistency	The degree of the interrelatedness among the items on the cognitive screening tool (per dimension).	Cronbach’s Alpha
Inter-rater Reliability	The extent to which scores for patients who have not changed are the same for repeated measurement under several conditions (across different examiners)	Intra-class correlations (ICC) or weighted Kappa
Test-retest Validity	The extent to which scores for patients who have not changed are the same for repeated measurement under several conditions (across two separate tests)	Intra-class correlations (ICC) or weighted Kappa
Criterion Validity (or Diagnostic Accuracy)	Ability to detect cognitive impairment (measured by a standard neuropsychological test and appropriate reference criteria, as defined by the authors) or traumatic brain injury diagnosis.	Correlation, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), area under the curve (AUC).
Convergent or Divergent Validity	Correlation with a measure expected to be related or divergent to the cognitive screening tool (such as a functional measure), where both measures are completed at the same time.	Correlation coefficient (such as Pearson’s R or Spearman’s Rho)
Discriminant Validity	Ability to distinguish between TBI and control groups, or between severity of TBI status (mild, moderate, severe).	Independent t-tests with effect size statistic.

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart displaying excluded and included studies at each stage of the review process.

PRISMA flow chart showing that there were 2135 records screened at title and abstract stage, 410 assessed at full text stage, and 34 studies included in the review.

Table 2. Sample characteristics.

ID	Reference	TBI group (n)	TBI mean age (years) (SD)	TBI % male	TBI severity (n)	TBI time since injury M (SD)	Control group (n) (if present)	Controls mean age (years) (SD)	Controls % male
1	(Adjorlolo, 2018)	50	36.28 (7.20)	70.00%	Moderate	8 months (4.58)	50	27.98 (6.75)	58.00%
2	(Adjorlolo, 2016)	50	36.28 (7.20)	70.00%	Moderate	8 months (4.58)	50	27.98 (6.75)	58.00%
3	(Borgaro & Prigatano, 2002)	42	Moderate = 34.09 (14.80); Severe = 38.05 (14.72)	Moderate 77.3%; severe 66.7%	Moderate (22); severe (20)	Moderate = 6.05 days (11.91) severe = 20.43 days (11.68)	21	37.67 (17.22)	76.20%
4	(Borgaro et al., 2003)	65	38.8 (16.02)	75.40%	Mild (20), moderate (12); severe (33)	23.02 days (18.31)	25	38.63 (16.64)	59.30%
5	(Cheng et al., 2021)	86	51.651 (16.487)	70.90%	Mild (78) moderate (4) severe (4)	Not reported	40	53.250 (13.897)	70.00%
6	(Cheng et al., 2022)	50	51.92 (19.070)	78%	Mild (43); Moderate (3) Severe (4)	8 days (7–11.25) (median, IQR)	32	50.88 (17.716)	68.80%
7	(Cole et al., 2018)	59^a	27.0 (6.0)	95.40%	Mild	4.97 days (1.76)	68^a	34.4 (7.9)	79%
8	(Doninger et al., 2006)	120	37.5 (12.6)	82%	Mild (30.6%), moderate (24.6%) severe (44.8%)	29 days (29)
9	(Ettenhofer et al., 2021)	191	35.04 (8.05)	93.2%	Mild	27.12 months (8.28–85.81) (median, IQR)
10	(Fischer et al., 2016)	11	33 (16.5)	72.72%	Mild	5.9 h (5.2)	12 HC; 7 O	O = 31 (11.6); HC = 33 (15.0)	O = 100%; HC = 75%
11	(Frenette et al., 2019)	134; 92 “complicated mTBI”, 42 uncomplicated	Uncomplicated: 47.5 (26.0–59.0) Complicated: 58.5 (35.5–76.5)	Uncomplicated 66.67%; Complicated 60.87%	Mild	“Within the first 2 weeks following the injury”	25	21.92 (5.26)	48%
12	(Gupta & Kumar, 2009)	30	33.5 (10.7)	83.30%	Moderate-severe	27.6 months (33.8)	55	26.53 (8.48).	47.27%
13	(Hatta et al., 2012)	42	30.7 (11.0)	80.95%%	“Mostly mild TBI”	7.7 months (2.6)	32	50.88 (17.716)	68.80%
14	(Joseph et al., 2019)	100	43.47 (16.43);	Overall 65%; mild 65%; moderate/severe 65%	Mild (60) moderate-severe (40)	386.14 days (454.49)
15	(Tay et al., 2019)	61 (50 outpatient; 11 inpatient)	52.6 [17.4]	80.30%	Moderate-severe TBI	17.5 months (18.0)
16	(Nabors et al., 1997)	45^a	39.5 (15.7)	78.00%	Mild (21); moderate (8); severe (13); unknown (2)	34.7 days (25.3)
17	(Pinasco et al., 2023)	28	36.59 (13.76)	71.43%	Mild (3); moderate-severe (25)	60.33 months (61.02)
18	(Rojas & Bennett, 1995)	25	27.44 (7.11)	52%	Mild TBI
19	(Silverberg et al., 2014)	26^a	36.6 (12.2)	73.10%	Mild TBI		33	42.8 (12.2)	51.5%
20	(Srivastava et al., 2006)	43^a	66 (7.2)	37.20%	Mild (28); moderate (15)	“one year post-TBI”
21	(Vissoci et al., 2019)	192	33.87 (13.32)	82.80%	Mild(175); Moderate-severe (17)
22	(Waldron-Perrine et al., 2019)	117^b	31.33 (8.48)	95.7% (total sample)	Mild TBI only
23	(Walsh et al., 2016)	100	26.31 (5.83)	87%	mTBI only	≤ 72 h after injury	100	26.31 (5.83)	79%
24	(Wu et al., 2023)	98	51.17 (16.81)	75.51%	Moderate-severe	20.23 days (5.16)	30	46.77 (16.13)	60%
25	(Zhang et al., 2016)	103	35.9 (13.08)^c	84.47%		In the last “1–12 months”	42	31 (11.3)	80.95%%
26	(Zhang et al., 2021)	42	47.00 (15.814)	76.20%		Not reported	30	44.07 (11.435)	60.00%
27	(Maruff et al., 2009)	50	43.2 (5.6)	80%	mTBI only	72 days (14)	50	44.7 (4.9)	80%
28	(Wong et al., 2013)	48	50 (16)	73%	Median (IQR) GCS score: 14 (11–15).	3–5 years	40
29	(Luoto et al., 2014)	44	37.5 (12.1)	67.30%	mTBI only	38.4 h (30.3)	33	42.8 (12.2)	51.50%
30	(Coldren et al., 2010)	71	26.5	96%	“Concussive event” (moderate/severe excluded)	>12 h after the event	102 HC and 64 I	27.3	88%
31	(Doninger et al., 2000)	186	34	75%		32 months (Median)
32	(Stone et al., 2015)	84	36.1 (13)	76%	“Concussion”	23.6 hrs (14)	30	36.9 (13)	76.7
33	(Bin Zahid et al., 2018)	118 (87 [-CT]; 31 [ + CT])	41.09 (11.37) (-CT); 37.86 (13.91) (+CT)	76% (-CT); 81% (+CT)		0–5 days	98 HC; 46 O	HC = 32.14 (11.26); O = 35.72 (10.58)	HC  = 49%; O = 80%
34	(Cicerone & Azulay, 2002)	32	39.4 (9.6)	43.75%	Mild/“concussion”	14.3 months (9.5)	32	37.2 (9.7)	43.75%

Abbreviations: TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury; mTBI, mild traumatic brain injury; CT+, TBI with “positive”: CT scan; CT-, TBI with “negative” CT scan; HC, health controls; O, orthopedic injury; I, injured controls.

^a Maximum sample size (not all participants completed all screening tests).

^b This total sample includes patients who were then confirmed NOT to have a diagnosis of TBI as part of this study; sample size of confirmed TBI and non-TBI group not reported.

^c Age at “onset” of TBI reported.

Table 3. Screening tools.

Screening Tool	Domains	Items	Range of Scores	Time to administer	Included studies which evaluate the screen (study ID)
2 & 7 Selective Attention Test (“2&7”)	Selective Attention	20 trials		5 min	34
Axon Sport's CogState Sport (CogState)	Psychomotor function, information processing, decision making, working memory, and visual memory (recognition)	4		?	7, 27
Barrow Neurological Institute Screen for Higher Cerebral Functions (BNIS)	Language functions, orientation, memory, concentration/attention, visual spatial problem-solving skills, affect expression and perception, and awareness			0–25 minutes^a	3, 4
Bethesda Eye & Attention Measure (BEAM)	Visual attention			10 min	9
Cognistat (Neurobeh-avioral Cognitive Status Examination; NCSE)	Orientation, attention, language, constructional praxis, memory, calculations, and verbal reasoning. Level of conscious also reported	51	Average, mildly impaired, moderately impaired, or severely impaired	10–20 min	8, 12, 16, 31
Continuous Performance Test of Attention (CPTA)	Attention	450 consecutive stimuli across 5 conditions	Error score 0–450	10 min	34
COntrolled Word Association Test (COWAT)	Verbal fluency	3		3 min	1, 2
Digit cancellation test (D-CAT)	Focused attention, sustained attention or concentration, and selective attention			5 min	13
Digit Span	Attention	32 (16 for each domain)	0–32	1–3 min	34
Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT)	Processing speed, reaction time, visual memory, and verbal memory			20 min	7
INECO Frontal Screening (IFS)	Executive function (motor programming, conflicting instructions, motor inhibitory control, verbal and visual working memory, verbal abstraction ability, and inhibitory control)		0–30	10 min	17
King-Devick Test (K-D)	Processing speed and rapid gaze shifting			∼2 min	10, 19, 23
Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)	Orientation, memory, calculation and attention, naming, language, and visuospatial function	11	0–30	5–10 mins	5, 6, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28
Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)	Visuospatial and executive function, naming, memory, attention, language, abstraction, orientation	30	0–30	∼10 mins	6, 11, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28
Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT)	Attention	60 trials	0–60	10–15 min	34
Revised Quick Cognitive Screening Test (RQCST)	Orientation, Attention/concentration (verbal), Attention/concentration (visual), Memory: Immediate recall (verbal), Spatial neglect, Arithmetic, Constructional praxis, Memory: Immediate recall (visual), Vocabulary, Naming, Abstract reasoning: Similarities, Abstract reasoning: Analogies, Unusual views, Spatial orientation, Memory: Delayed recall (visual), Memory: Delayed recall and Memory: Working memory	48		10–15 mins	1, 2
Rey’s Tangled Lines Test (RTLT)	Processing speed			< 5 min	14
Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS)	Memory, visual spatial orientation, visual structure painting, practical imitation, judgment, language	6	0–30	<10 min	5, 6
Saint Louis University Mental Status examination (SLUMS)	Orientation, memory, calculation, attention, language, visuospatial and executive function	11	0–30	5–10 min	24, 26
Standard Assessment of Concussion (SAC)^b	Orientation, immediate memory, concentration, and delayed recall		0–30	5 min	10, 19, 29, 30, 32, 33
King-Devick Test (K-D)	Processing speed and rapid gaze shifting			∼2 min
Stroop Colour Word Test (SCWT) / Stroop Neuropsychological Screening Test (SNST)	Selective attention and response inhibition			4 min	1, 2, 18, 34
Trail Making Test (TMT)	Speed of processing, sequence alternation, cognitive flexibility, visual search, motor performance, complex attention	2			1, 2, 34

^a Estimates vary across the literature; as some are less than 20 min, this measure was included.

^b The Standard Assessment of Concussion (SAC) was administered as part of the Military Assessment of Concussion (MACE) (French et al., 2008) or the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT) (Guskiewicz et al., 2013); it was only reported if it was analysed separately (as both of these tools contain ineligible elements).

Table 4. QUADAS 2 Risk of Bias and Applicability Ratings (Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies only).

Study ID	Risk of Bias				Applicability
	Patient selection	Index test	Reference standard	Flow and timing	Patient selection	Index test	Reference standard
1	HIGH	HIGH	LOW	UNCLEAR	LOW	LOW	LOW
5	HIGH	HIGH	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	LOW	LOW
6	HIGH	HIGH	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	LOW	LOW	LOW
15	UNCLEAR	HIGH	UNCLEAR	LOW	LOW	LOW	UNCLEAR
19	HIGH	HIGH	LOW	HIGH	LOW	UNCLEAR	LOW
24	HIGH	HIGH	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	LOW	LOW	LOW
28	HIGH	HIGH	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	LOW	LOW	LOW
29	HIGH	HIGH	LOW	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	LOW	LOW
32	LOW	HIGH	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW
34	HIGH	HIGH	LOW	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	LOW	UNCLEAR

Note: “HIGH” = risk of bias; “LOW” = low/no identified risk of bias; “UNCLEAR” when insufficient data to make a judgement (Whiting et al., 2011).

Table 5. Overall property rating and GRADE rating of quality of evidence for structural validity, internal consistency, and reliability.

Instrument	Structural validity		Internal consistency		Reliability (Inter-rater)		Reliability (Test-Retest)
	Overall rating	Quality of evidence	Overall rating	Quality of evidence	Overall rating	Quality of evidence	Overall rating	Quality of evidence
Cognistat	?	Ungraded^a	-	Low	+	Low	-	Very Low
MMSE	+	High	-	High
MoCA	+	Moderate	+	High
RQCST			-	High
RUDAS			+	Moderate	+	Moderate	+	Moderate
SLUMS			+	Low	+	Low	-	Very Low

Notes: Overall property rating: sufficient (+), insufficient (-), inconsistent (+/-) or indeterminate (?).

Abbreviations: MMSE, Mini Mental State Exam; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; RQCST, Revised Quick Cognitive Screening Test; RUDAS, Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale; SLUMS, Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination.

^a Where results are rated as inconsistent or indeterminate, no quality level for evidence is to be given as per COSMIN guidelines.

Table 6. Overall property rating and GRADE rating of quality of evidence for criterion validity and hypothesis testing.

Instrument	Criterion Validity		Hypothesis Testing (Convergent unless specified)		Hypothesis Testing (Discriminant)
	Overall rating	Quality of evidence	Overall rating	Quality of evidence	Overall rating	Quality of evidence
2&7	?	Ungraded^a
AxonSport CogState	–	Moderate			–	Low
BNIS					+	Very Low
BNIS (orientation)					?	Ungraded^a
BEAM	–	Ungraded^b
Cognistat	?	Ungraded^a	+/-	Ungraded^b	+	Very Low
COWAT	+	High	-	Moderate
CPTA	?	Ungraded^a
DCAT					+	Very Low
Digit Span	?	Ungraded^a
ImPACT	-	Moderate
IFS	+	Moderate			+	Very Low
K-D	-	Ungraded^b			-	Moderate
MMSE	+	Moderate	+/-	Ungraded^a	+	Moderate
MOCA	+	High	+	High	+	Moderate
PASAT	?	Ungraded^a
RQCST	+	High	+	High
RTLT					-	Very Low
RUDAS	+	High	+	High	+	Moderate
SLUMS	+	High	+	High	+	Low
SAC	+/-	Ungraded^a	-^c	Very Low	+	High
SCWT	+	High	-	Ungraded^b	+	High
SNST					+	Very Low
TMT	+	High	-	Moderate	+	High

Notes: Overall property rating: sufficient (+), insufficient (-), inconsistent (+/-) or indeterminate (?).

Abbreviations: 2&7, 2 & 7 Selective Attention Test; AxonSport Cogstate, Axon Sport's CogState Sport; BNIS, Barrow Neurological Institute Screen for Higher Cerebral Functions; BEAM, Bethesda Eye & Attention Measure; Cognistat, Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Examination (NCSE); COWAT, Controlled Oral Word Association Test; CPTA, Continuous Performance Test of Attention; D-CAT, Digit Cancellation Test; ImPACT, Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing; IFS, INECO Frontal Screening; K-D, King-Devick Test MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; PASAT, Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test; RQCST, Revised Quick Cognitive Screening Test; RTLT, Rey Tangled Lines Test; RUDAS, Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale; SAC, Standard Assessment of Concussion; SCWT, Stroop Colour Word Test; SLUMS, Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination; SNST, Stroop Neuropsychological Screening Test; TMT, Trail Making Test.

^a Where results are rated as inconsistent or indeterminate, no quality level for evidence is to be given as per COSMIN guidelines.

^b Denotes situations where sample size was not provided, meaning that the imprecision GRADE criterion could not be rated.

^c Hypothesis testing was divergent rather than convergent.

Mokkink, L. B., Prinsen, C. A.C., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., De Vet, H. C. W., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). User manual. https://www.cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMIN-syst-review-for-PROMs-manual_version-1_feb-2018-1.pdf

 Google Scholar

Adjorlolo, S. (2018). Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of executive function tests in moderate traumatic brain injury in Ghana. Assessment, 25(4), 498–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116646445

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Adjorlolo, S. (2016). Ecological validity of executive function tests in moderate traumatic brain injury in Ghana. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 30(Suppl 1), 1517–1537. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1172667

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Borgaro, S. R., & Prigatano, G. P. (2002). Early cognitive and affective sequelae of traumatic brain injury: A study using the BNI screen for higher cerebral functions. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 17(6), 526–534. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001199-200212000-00004

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Borgaro, S. R., Kwasnica, C., Cutter, N., & Alcott, S. (2003). The use of the BNI screen for higher cerebral functions in assessing disorientation after traumatic brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 18(3), 284–291. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001199-200305000-00006

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cheng, Y., Wang, Y.-Z., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Xie, F., Zhang, Y., Wu, Y.-H., Guo, J., & Fei, X. (2021). Comparative analysis of rowland universal dementia assessment scale and mini-mental state examination in cognitive assessment of traumatic brain injury patients. NeuroRehabilitation, 49(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-210044

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cheng, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Wu, Y.-H., & Zhang, S. (2022). Reliability and validity of the rowland universal dementia assessment scale for patients with traumatic brain injury. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 29(5), 1160–1166. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2020.1856850

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cole, W. R., Arrieux, J. P., Ivins, B. J., Schwab, K. A., & Qashu, F. M. (2018). A comparison of four computerized neurocognitive assessment tools to a traditional neuropsychological test battery in service members with and without mild traumatic brain injury. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 33(1), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acx036

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Doninger, N. A., Ehde, D. M., Bode, R. K., Knight, K., Bombardier, C. H., & Heinemann, A. W. (2006). Measurement properties of the neurobehavioral cognitive status examination (cognistat) in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 51(4), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.51.4.281

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ettenhofer, M. L., Hungerford, L. D., & Agtarap, S. (2021). Multimodal neurocognitive screening of military personnel with a history of mild traumatic brain injury using the Bethesda eye & attention measure. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 36(6), 447–455. https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000000683

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fischer, T. D., Red, S. D., Chuang, A. Z., Jones, E. B., McCarthy, J. J., Patel, S. S., & Sereno, A. B. (2016). Detection of subtle cognitive changes after mTBI using a novel tablet-based task. Journal of Neurotrauma, 33(13), 1237–1246. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2015.3990

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Frenette, L. C., Tinawi, S., Correa, J. A., Alturki, A. Y., LeBlanc, J., Feyz, M., & de Guise, E. (2019). Early detection of cognitive impairments with the Montreal cognitive assessment in patients with uncomplicated and complicated mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 33(2), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2018.1542506

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gupta, A., & Kumar, N. K. (2009). Indian adaptation of the cognistat: Psychometric properties of a cognitive screening tool for patients of traumatic brain injury. The Indian Journal of Neurotrauma, 6(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0973-0508(09)80006-3

 Google Scholar

Hatta, T., Yoshizaki, K., Ito, Y., Mase, M., & Kabasawa, H. (2012). Reliability and validity of the digit cancellation TEST, a brief screen of attention. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychological Sciences, 55(4), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.2117/psysoc.2012.246

 Google Scholar

Joseph, A.-L. C., Peterson, H. A., Garcia, K. M., McNally, S. M., Mburu, T. K., Lippa, S. M., Dsurney, J., & Chan, L. (2019). Rey’s tangled line test: A measure of processing speed in TBI. Rehabilitation Psychology, 64(4), 445–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000284

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tay, M. R. J., Soh, Y. M., Plunkett, T. K., Ong, P. L., Huang, W., & Kong, K. H. (2019). The validity of the Montreal cognitive assessment for moderate to severe traumatic brain injury patients: A pilot study. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 98(11), 971–975. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000001227

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nabors, N. A., Millis, S. R., & Rosenthal, M. (1997). Use of the neurobehavioral cognitive status examination (cognistat) in traumatic brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 12(3), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001199-199706000-00008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pinasco, C., Oviedo, M., Goldfeder, M., Bruno, D., Lischinsky, A., Torralva, T., & Roca, M. (2023). Sensitivity and specificity of the INECO frontal screening (IFS) in the detection of patients with traumatic brain injury presenting executive deficits. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 30(3), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2021.1937170

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rojas, D. C., & Bennett, T. L. (1995). Single versus composite score discriminative validity with the Halstead–Reitan battery and the Stroop test in mild brain injury. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 10, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/10.2.101

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Silverberg, N. D., Luoto, T. M., Öhman, J., & Iverson, G. L. (2014). Assessment of mild traumatic brain injury with the King-Devick test in an emergency department sample. Brain Injury, 28(12), 1590–1593. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2014.943287

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Srivastava, A., Rapoport, M. J., Leach, L., Phillips, A., Shammi, P., & Feinstein, A. (2006). The utility of the mini-mental status exam in older adults with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 20(13-14), 1377–1382. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699050601111385

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vissoci, J. R. N., de Oliveira, L. P., Gafaar, T., Haglund, M. M., Mvungi, M., Mmbaga, B. T., & Staton, C. A. (2019). Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the MMSE and MoCA questionnaires in Tanzanian swahili for a traumatic brain injury population. BMC Neurology, 19(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-019-1283-9

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Waldron-Perrine, B., Gabel, N. M., Seagly, K., Kraal, A. Z., Pangilinan, P., Spencer, R. J., & Bieliauskas, L. (2019). Montreal Cognitive Assessment as a screening tool: Influence of performance and symptom validity. Neurology Clinical Practice, 9(2), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000604

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Walsh, D. V., Capó-Aponte, J. E., Beltran, T., Cole, W. R., Ballard, A., & Dumayas, J. Y. (2016). Assessment of the King-Devick® (KD) test for screening acute mTBI/concussion in warfighters. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 370, 305–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2016.09.014

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wu, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Yuan, X., & Gao, X. (2023). A preliminary study of the saint louis university mental status examination (SLUMS) for the assessment of cognition in moderate to severe traumatic brain injury patients. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 30(4), 409–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2021.1952414

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, H., Zhang, X.-N., Zhang, H.-L., Huang, L., Chi, Q.-Q., Zhang, X., & Yun, X.-P. (2016). Differences in cognitive profiles between traumatic brain injury and stroke: A comparison of the Montreal cognitive assessment and mini-mental state examination. Chinese Journal of Traumatology, 19(5), 271–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjtee.2015.03.007

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, S., Wu, Y.-H., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., & Cheng, Y. (2021). Preliminary study of the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination (SLUMS) in detecting cognitive impairment in patients with traumatic brain injury. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 28(6), 633–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2019.1680986

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Maruff, P., Thomas, E., Cysique, L., Brew, B., Collie, A., Snyder, P., & Pietrzak, R. H. (2009). Validity of the CogState brief battery: Relationship to standardized tests and sensitivity to cognitive impairment in mild traumatic brain injury, schizophrenia, and AIDS dementia complex. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 24(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acp010

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wong, G. K. C., Ngai, K., Lam, S. W., Wong, A., Mok, V., & Poon, W. S. (2013). Validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for traumatic brain injury patients with intracranial haemorrhage. Brain Injury, 27(4), 394–398. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2012.750746

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Luoto, T. M., Silverberg, N. D., Kataja, A., Brander, A., Tenovuo, O., Ohman, J., & Iverson, G. L. (2014). Sport concussion assessment tool 2 in a civilian trauma sample with mild traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurotrauma, 31(8), 728–738. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2013.3174

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Coldren, R. L., Kelly, M. P., Parish, R. V., Dretsch, M., & Russell, M. L. (2010). Evaluation of the military acute concussion evaluation for use in combat operations more than 12 h after injury. Military Medicine, 175(7), 477–481. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-09-00258

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Doninger, N. A., Bode, R. K., Heinemann, A. W., & Ambrose, C. (2000). Rating scale analysis of the neurobehavioral cognitive status examination. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 15(1), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001199-200002000-00007

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stone, M. E. J., Safadjou, S., Farber, B., Velazco, N., Man, J., Reddy, S. H., Todor, R., & Teperman, S. (2015). Utility of the military acute concussion evaluation as a screening tool for mild traumatic brain injury in a civilian trauma population. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 79(1), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000000679

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bin Zahid, A., Hubbard, M., Dammavalam, V., Balser, D., Pierre, G., Kim, A., Kolecki, R., Mehmood, T., Wall, S. P., Frangos, S. G., Huang, P. P., Tupper, D. E., Barr, W., & Samadani, U. (2018). Assessment of acute head injury in an emergency department population using sport concussion assessment tool - 3rd edition. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 25, 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2016.1248765

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cicerone, K. D., & Azulay, J. (2002). Diagnostic utility of attention measures in postconcussion syndrome. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 16(3), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1076/clin.16.3.280.13849

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

French, L., Mccrea, M., & Baggett, M. (2008). The military acute concussion evaluation (MACE). Journal of Special Operations Medicine, 8, 68–77.

 Google Scholar

Guskiewicz, K. M., Register-Mihalik, J., McCrory, P., McCrea, M., Johnston, K., Makdissi, M., Dvořák, J., Davis, G., & Meeuwisse, W. (2013). Evidence-based approach to revising the SCAT2: Introducing the SCAT3. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 47(5), 289–293. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-092225

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M., Sterne, J. A., Bossuyt, P. M., & QUADAS-2 Group. (2011). QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Annals of Internal Medicine, 155(8), 529–536. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar