The short answer
If you are choosing a concussion management platform, the first question is not “which one has the most features.” It is “which one actually tests the right things, in the right way, at the right time.” Most platforms on the market test one part of the brain, or use tools that lose their value within a few days of injury. That is the core problem with comparing concussion software on a feature checklist alone.
NeuroLogic™ by Complete Concussions is built around a different principle: concussion is a multifaceted injury, so the testing has to be multifaceted too. It combines a sensitive, repeatable testing battery with a full management workflow, remote testing through a free app, a connection to the world’s largest network of concussion-trained clinicians, and clinical insights drawn from one of the largest concussion datasets in the world.
This article walks through why that matters, what the published evidence actually says about the common tools, and how NeuroLogic™ compares to ImPACT, C3 Logix, Sway, HEADCHECK, and ScreenIT.
Why concussion is a multifaceted injury
Concussion does not affect one system. It can disrupt thinking speed, memory, balance, eye movements, the vestibular system, reaction time, mood, sleep, and the autonomic nervous system that controls heart rate and exertion tolerance. Different people are affected in different combinations. One athlete might have mostly cognitive symptoms. Another might look cognitively fine but have a balance or vestibular problem that does not show up on a memory test.
If you only test one of those domains, you will miss the people whose problem lives somewhere else. A single cognitive test cannot tell you about balance. A balance test cannot tell you about eye movements. A symptom checklist cannot tell you whether the brain has actually recovered underneath the symptoms.
That is why a real concussion assessment is not a single test. It is a battery that samples several domains of brain and physical function. The reason for that is simple: a heterogeneous injury needs a heterogeneous assessment. When you test only one area, you are not running a concussion protocol. You are running a small piece of one.
This single point is the most important thing to understand before comparing any two platforms. Most of the tools in this category are, by design, one test. NeuroLogic™ is a battery.
What baseline testing is actually for
There is a common misconception that baseline testing exists to diagnose the concussion. It doesn’t, at least not mainly. The main purpose of baseline testing is to make safer return-to-sport and return-to-activity decisions.
The reason for that comes down to one clinical fact: the brain’s recovery takes longer than the symptoms’ recovery. An athlete can feel completely normal, report a symptom score of zero, and pass a basic sideline protocol while still having measurable deficits in cognition, balance, or reaction time. A systematic review of return-to-play testing found that across the included studies, symptom-free athletes still showed deficits in memory or processing speed compared with controls, and concluded that neurocognitive testing adds value to return-to-play decisions beyond symptoms alone.[1]
So what does that mean practically? It means the window where symptoms have resolved but the brain has not is exactly the window where athletes get sent back too early, and it is exactly the window where a second impact is most dangerous. A good baseline gives the clinician an individualized reference point so they are not guessing about whether someone is truly back to their own normal.
But here’s the catch, and it’s the part most software comparisons skip entirely. For a test to be useful in that window, it has to be sensitive enough to detect subtle deficits after symptoms are gone. A test that returns to normal the moment symptoms return to normal cannot help you with the one decision baseline testing exists to support. This is where the differences between platforms stop being about features and start being about whether the testing works at all.
The sensitivity problem: where the common tools fall short
A concussion test can fail you in two ways. It can be unreliable, meaning the score bounces around even when nothing has changed. Or it can lack sensitivity, meaning it returns to “normal” before the brain has actually recovered. Both of these are documented problems with the most common tools.
ImPACT: the most studied tool, and the most criticized
ImPACT is a computerized neurocognitive test that measures memory, processing speed, and reaction time. It is, by design, a single cognitive test. Because it is the most widely studied tool in this space, it also has the most published evidence about its limitations.
A few findings matter for any buyer:
- Its built-in validity checks miss invalid baselines. A review of 23 studies on invalid ImPACT performance found that the default embedded validity indicators flagged fewer invalid baselines than alternative criteria, and were not sensitive enough to catch all invalid baseline performances.[2] If you cannot trust the baseline, every comparison you make against it afterward is shaky.
- Published norms do not fit every population. A study of low ImPACT scores in adolescent athletes found that the frequency of “low” scores varied by race and socioeconomic status.[3] A clinician comparing a patient’s post-injury score against generic norms that do not match that patient can call a normal brain “impaired,” or an impaired brain “normal.”
- Scores drift over time on their own. A study of one-year baseline stability in high-school football players found that younger athletes improved across a single year as a result of normal development, which means natural change can look like recovery on serial testing.[4]
None of this means cognitive testing is useless. It means a single cognitive test, interpreted against generic norms, is a weak foundation to build a program on.
SCAT-based tools: excellent on the sideline, limited after that
The SCAT (Sport Concussion Assessment Tool) is genuinely strong in the acute moment. A diagnostic meta-analysis of 30 studies found the SCAT had the strongest overall diagnostic yield among the common acute tools, while balance testing had the weakest pooled sensitivity.[5] So if you want a sideline tool, a digitized SCAT is a reasonable choice.
The problem is what happens after the sideline. The systematic review that informed the SCAT6 found that the SCAT discriminates best between concussed and non-concussed athletes within the first 72 hours, with its usefulness dropping off after that.[6] In plain language: the SCAT is built to catch a concussion right after it happens, not to tell you weeks later whether the brain has recovered enough to return to contact.
This is the key thing to understand about several platforms on this list. Tools like HEADCHECK and ScreenIT are, at their core, a digitized SCAT. They inherit the SCAT’s strength as a sideline tool, and they inherit its limitation: it largely normalizes in the first few days, which means it misses the most important job of baseline testing, which is catching deficits beyond symptom resolution. A faster, prettier version of the SCAT is still the SCAT.
Balance-first tools: organized around the weakest acute signal
Some platforms are built primarily around balance testing. The same meta-analysis above found balance testing had the weakest pooled sensitivity of any common acute tool.[5] Balance matters and belongs in a battery, but a platform built mainly around balance is built around the least sensitive single signal.
The pattern across all of these is the same. Each tool is reasonable at one job. None of them, used alone, covers the full injury or holds up across the full recovery.
The DANA difference: a test built for the window that matters
NeuroLogic™ uses the DANA (Digital Automated Neurobehavioral Assessment) as its neurocognitive test. DANA was originally developed for battlefield concussion assessment, which means it was built to be mobile, repeatable, and resistant to the practice effects that contaminate serial testing.
Two findings are worth stating precisely, because they are the reason DANA sits at the center of the battery:
- DANA is more reliable on repeat testing than older computerized tests. A study evaluating DANA’s test-retest reliability across a season of football players found its reliability coefficient was higher, with tighter bounds, than both ANAM and ImPACT.[7] A more reliable test means a smaller, real change is easier to trust.
- DANA detected deficits after symptoms had resolved, where ImPACT did not. This is the finding that matters most. In a study of adolescents in the subacute period after concussion, there were no differences in self-reported symptoms between the concussed and non-concussed groups, and no significant differences on ImPACT. DANA, by contrast, detected performance deficits in simple reaction time and response inhibition in the concussed group long after symptoms had resolved.[8]
So what does that mean practically? It means that in exactly the scenario baseline testing exists for, symptoms gone, a standard cognitive test reading normal, DANA was still picking up the residual deficit. That is the difference between a test that confirms what the symptoms already tell you and a test that tells you something the symptoms can’t.
This fits a broader pattern in the head-to-head research. When the three most common computerized neurocognitive tests, ImPACT, CogState (Axon Sport), and ANAM, were compared directly in concussed athletes, all three were reasonably sensitive at 24 hours, but their ability to detect a real change dropped to near chance by roughly day 8 after injury.[9] In other words, the standard computerized tools tend to normalize within about a week, right before the return-to-sport window opens. DANA, on the other hand, still detects deficits weeks later, after both symptoms and ImPACT have gone quiet.[8]
For clinics and providers: if your concern is that a testing tool has to produce data you can actually defend, this is the case for building the cognitive layer on a reliable, sensitivity-tested instrument rather than the most familiar one. NeuroLogic™ consolidates baseline, post-injury, and remote monitoring into one workflow so the testing is reliable and the interpretation is built in.
In-person vs. remote testing: how the test actually gets done
There is a practical dimension that rarely makes it into feature comparisons, and it decides whether a program is realistic to run at all.
- The SCAT requires in-person, one-on-one administration. A clinician has to sit with each athlete and run it manually. That is fine for a single sideline assessment. It does not scale to baselining an entire school.
- ImPACT is typically administered in person on computers. In practice that often means booking a computer lab and bringing athletes through in groups. There is preliminary work on remote ImPACT administration, but as of now that evidence is still early days, not established practice.[10]
- NeuroLogic™ can be done completely remotely. Athletes complete their cognitive, balance, and symptom baselines on their own phones through the free Concussion Tracker app, before the season starts, with no computer lab and no hardware. The same app runs sideline screening at the point of injury with instant baseline comparison, and ongoing recovery check-ins between visits. Because it is fully mobile-optimized, it is actually available on the sideline, which most platforms are not.
This is not a small operational detail. A testing protocol that requires a clinician and a lab for every athlete is a protocol most schools and clubs will not complete. A protocol that runs on the phone the athlete already owns is one they will.
For schools, athletic trainers, and clubs: if you need something defensible that coaches will actually adopt, remote baseline testing on the athlete’s own phone plus app-based sideline screening removes the two biggest barriers to running a real program at scale.
Why NeuroLogic™ is the strongest testing platform
Pulling the testing argument together, here is the case in one place. As a platform for baselines, sideline screening, and return-to-sport decisions, NeuroLogic™ leads on the dimensions that actually determine whether testing works:
- It is multifaceted. It samples cognition, balance, eye movements, the vestibular system, reaction time, exertion tolerance, and mental health, not one domain.
- It is sensitive where it counts. Its core cognitive test has shown the ability to detect deficits after symptoms resolve, which is the exact window return-to-sport decisions live in.[8]
- It is reliable on repeat testing. Higher test-retest reliability than older computerized tools means smaller real changes are easier to trust.[7]
- It can be done remotely and on the sideline. Fully mobile-optimized, on the athlete’s own device, before the season and at the moment of injury.
That combination, multifaceted plus sensitive plus reliable plus remote, is the part competitors built around a single test or a single sideline tool cannot match.
NeuroLogic™ is also a complete management platform
Testing is the foundation, but managing a concussion takes more than testing. NeuroLogic™ covers the full arc from baseline through clearance in one system.
The full clinical battery includes:
- DANA neurocognitive testing with built-in validity checks
- App-based postural sway for balance, using the phone’s motion sensors
- SCAT6, the gold-standard sideline assessment, fully digitized
- SCOAT6 for office-based assessment
- VOMS (Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening), which adds meaningful diagnostic value for identifying acute concussion when combined with other tools[11]
- King-Devick for eye-movement speed
- Orthostatic vital signs for autonomic function
- Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test for graded exertion tolerance
- The Gapski-Goodman (Chicago Blackhawks) test for readiness to return to contact
- Mental health screens (PHQ-8, GAD-7, ISI) for mood, anxiety, and sleep
The management workflow adds:
- Built-in SOAP notes and clinical documentation within the platform, so the day’s testing lives in the chart
- Return-to-play, return-to-learn, and return-to-work as three tracked, documented workflows, gated by objective criteria
- Automated stakeholder communication. When an injury is logged, the system notifies parents, coaches, teachers, and clinicians, and alerts them again at every stage change and at clearance, building a complete, timestamped communication record without phone calls and manual emails.
This is the difference between a test and a program. Most tools in this category hand you a result and leave the workflow, the communication, and the documentation for you to assemble.
For clinicians building a concussion practice: this is the kind of integrated, multidisciplinary system that is otherwise difficult to assemble piece by piece, and it is the same framework taught in the Complete Concussions training program.
AI-driven insights from one of the world’s largest concussion datasets
Because NeuroLogic™ is connected to one of the largest concussion datasets in the world, it can do something no standalone test can: turn that data into clinical insight at the point of care.
These features are emerging and are meant to support clinical judgment, not replace it, so we describe them plainly. The platform’s AI-driven insights are being built to help with things like which treatment approaches are most applicable to a particular patient’s presentation, projected recovery timelines, and cost projections. Because the dataset spans the lifespan, it also opens the door to normative tracking over time, comparing a person against their own history to flag early cognitive or physical decline. That has value well beyond sport: for senior care and falls monitoring, and for people worried about the long-term effects of repeated head impacts.
This is a capability the connected dataset makes possible, and it is the direction the platform is moving. The point for a buyer is structural: a tool that is not connected to a large dataset cannot offer this at all.
Connected to the largest concussion care network in the world
NeuroLogic™ is not a standalone app. It is the software layer of the world’s largest network of certified, concussion-trained clinicians. That matters for two reasons.
First, for a school, club, or solo provider, it means there is a vetted referral path built in. When a case exceeds in-house scope, there is a direct connection to qualified, trained care, rather than a cold search for a provider.
Second, the platform is backed by the Complete Concussions training courses and continuing education through CCMI Academy. The same clinical framework that shapes the testing battery and the return-to-activity workflows is the one clinicians can be trained and certified in. The software, the evidence, the network, and the education are one system.
How NeuroLogic™ compares to each platform
| Feature | NeuroLogic™ | ImPACT | C3 Logix | Sway | HEADCHECK | ScreenIT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All-in-one concussion management platform | Yes, NeuroLogic is a complete, all-in-one concussion management platform featuring integrated communication, provider networks, and full workflow automation. | No, ImPACT does not function as a complete all-in-one concussion management platform. | Partial: iPad-only app with cloud database. No integrated communication, notifications, or provider network. | Partial: Strong mobile testing but no workflow automation, compliance trail, or stakeholder communication. | Partial: Protocol execution focus. No built-in testing battery - integrates with other tools rather than replacing them. | Partial: 50+ assessments available but positioned as an assessment library, not a full program operating system. |
| End-to-end workflow (baseline to injury to recovery to clearance) | Yes, NeuroLogic offers a seamless end-to-end workflow guiding patients from baseline testing through injury, recovery, and final medical clearance. | No, ImPACT does not offer a complete end-to-end workflow from baseline to final clearance. | No, C3 Logix does not offer a complete end-to-end workflow from baseline to final clearance. | Partial: Covers testing and reporting well. Return-to-play staging is partial. Return-to-learn and return-to-work workflows are not clearly documented in public materials. | Partial: Strong on protocol execution and oversight. Limited native testing. Relies on integration with tools like ImPACT. | No, ScreenIT does not offer a complete end-to-end workflow from baseline to final clearance. |
| Automated return-to-play and return-to-learn protocols | Yes, NeuroLogic features fully automated return-to-play and return-to-learn protocols that update dynamically. | No, ImPACT does not offer automated return-to-play and return-to-learn protocols. | No, C3 Logix does not offer automated return-to-play and return-to-learn protocols. | Partial: Return-to-play staging is documented. Return-to-learn and return-to-work are not clearly documented in public materials. | Yes. | No, ScreenIT does not offer automated return-to-play and return-to-learn protocols. |
| Real-time communication (parents, coaches, clinicians) | Yes, NeuroLogic provides real-time communication tools directly connecting parents, coaches, and clinicians within the platform. | No, ImPACT does not clearly document real-time communication tools for parents, coaches, and clinicians as a built-in platform feature. | No, C3 Logix does not clearly document real-time communication tools for parents, coaches, and clinicians as a built-in platform feature. | No, Sway does not clearly document real-time communication tools for parents, coaches, and clinicians as a built-in platform feature. | Partial: Role-based dashboards with oversight alerts. Direct parent notification specifics are not clearly documented in public materials. | No, ScreenIT does not clearly document real-time communication tools for parents, coaches, and clinicians as a built-in platform feature. |
| Remote testing and monitoring (home and clinic) | Yes, NeuroLogic fully supports remote testing and monitoring for patients at home or in the clinic. | Partial: Home baseline testing via access codes is supported. Remote post-injury testing via telemedicine is available for existing customers. | No, C3 Logix does not clearly document robust remote testing and monitoring at home as a built-in platform feature. | Yes. | No, HEADCHECK does not clearly document robust remote testing and monitoring at home as a built-in platform feature. | Partial: Digital assessments support multi-setting use. Home self-testing is not explicitly documented in public materials. |
| Multi-role apps (athlete, parent, coach, clinician) | Yes, NeuroLogic includes dedicated multi-role applications customized for athletes, parents, coaches, and clinicians. | Partial: ImPACT Passport supports athletes and patients. ImPACT Toolkit supports admins and clinicians. No dedicated coach or teacher app is clearly documented. | No, C3 Logix does not clearly document dedicated multi-role apps for athletes, parents, coaches, and clinicians. | Partial: Strong clinician and athlete apps. No dedicated parent or coach-specific role is clearly documented. | Yes. | Partial: Clinician and patient-facing tools are documented. Coach and parent role-specific apps are not clearly stated. |
| Complete clinical testing suite (multi-system) | Yes, NeuroLogic features a complete clinical testing suite covering cognitive, vestibular, oculomotor, mental health, symptom, exertional, and autonomic systems. | Partial: Strong neurocognitive testing. BESS and VOMS scoring are added through the Quick Test add-on. Exertional testing is not clearly documented. | Partial: Neurocognition, balance, visual acuity, and reaction time are covered. Exertional and mental health testing are not clearly documented. | Partial: 40+ tests including balance, cognition, function, and VOMS. Exertional testing such as Buffalo or Blackhawks and orthostatic testing are not clearly documented. | No, HEADCHECK does not include a complete multi-system clinical testing suite natively. | Partial: 50+ assessments in library including VOMS, Buffalo, and orthostatic. Assessments vary between built-in testing and manual entry. |
| Mental health and symptom tracking (PHQ / GAD-7 / ISI) | Yes, NeuroLogic natively integrates mental health and symptom tracking tools like the PHQ, GAD-7, and ISI. | No, ImPACT does not clearly document native integration of standard mental health tracking tools like the PHQ, GAD-7, and ISI. | No, C3 Logix does not clearly document native integration of standard mental health tracking tools like the PHQ, GAD-7, and ISI. | No, Sway does not clearly document native integration of standard mental health tracking tools like the PHQ, GAD-7, and ISI. | No, HEADCHECK does not clearly document native integration of standard mental health tracking tools like the PHQ, GAD-7, and ISI. | Partial: GAD-7 and SMHAT-1 are listed in the assessment library. They are not clearly integrated into standard concussion workflows in public materials. |
| Built-in clinical documentation and reporting | Yes, NeuroLogic includes robust built-in clinical documentation, SOAP notes, and automated reporting. | Partial: PDF reports and customer center reporting are available. SOAP notes and structured clinical documentation are not clearly documented. | No, C3 Logix does not clearly document robust built-in clinical documentation and SOAP notes. | Partial: PDF reports are available. Structured clinical notes and SOAP note integration are not clearly documented. | Yes. | Partial: Reports and PDF exports are available. Clinical notes are implied but not clearly documented as a core feature. |
| Integrated provider network and referral pathway | Yes, NeuroLogic uniquely connects users to a globally integrated provider network with direct referral pathways. | Partial: Provider finder directory through ImPACT Passport. Integrated referral pathways and clinic network membership are not clearly documented. | No, C3 Logix does not clearly document an integrated provider network and clinical referral pathway. | No, Sway does not clearly document an integrated provider network and clinical referral pathway. | No, HEADCHECK does not clearly document an integrated provider network and clinical referral pathway. | No, ScreenIT does not clearly document an integrated provider network and clinical referral pathway. |
| Training and education built into platform | Yes, NeuroLogic features world-class concussion training and clinical education built directly into the platform. | Partial: Onboarding and continuing education access varies by package tier. Structured training is not clearly documented as a standalone bundled platform feature. | No, C3 Logix does not clearly document clinical training and education built into the platform. | No, Sway does not clearly document clinical training and education built into the platform. | Partial: Protocol standardization and oversight tools include some training components. A structured course catalog is not clearly documented. | No, ScreenIT does not clearly document clinical training and education built into the platform. |
| Ongoing research updates and clinical support | Yes, NeuroLogic provides users with ongoing research updates and direct clinical support from medical experts. | No, ImPACT does not clearly document direct ongoing clinical support or curated research updates as a bundled benefit for all users. | No, C3 Logix does not clearly document direct ongoing clinical support or curated research updates as a bundled benefit for all users. | Partial: 60+ peer-reviewed studies are cited on the platform. Monthly curated research updates as a packaged benefit are not clearly documented. | No, HEADCHECK does not clearly document direct ongoing clinical support or curated research updates as a bundled benefit for all users. | No, ScreenIT does not clearly document direct ongoing clinical support or curated research updates as a bundled benefit for all users. |
Comparison based on publicly available vendor materials reviewed in June 2026. “Partial” means the feature appears limited, add-on dependent, workflow-incomplete, or not clearly documented as a native platform capability.
The detailed reasoning is above. Here is the summary, vendor by vendor.
- ImPACT. ImPACT is a single neurocognitive test. NeuroLogic™ includes a neurocognitive test with stronger reliability and demonstrated sensitivity after symptom resolution, plus balance, vestibular, ocular, exertional, autonomic, and mental health testing, plus the full management workflow. ImPACT covers one domain of one layer.
- C3 Logix. C3 Logix is a broader assessment than ImPACT, combining cognitive, symptom, and balance testing on a tablet. It is still missing vestibular, exertional, and autonomic testing, and it is structured as a clinic-bound assessment rather than a longitudinal program with remote testing, automated communication, and a referral network.
- Sway. Sway is primarily a balance app with a cognitive layer added. It is built around the least sensitive acute signal,[5] and it does not provide the vestibular, exertional, or autonomic testing, or the management workflow, a full program needs.
- HEADCHECK. HEADCHECK is a sideline tool built around a digitized SCAT. It inherits the SCAT’s limitation: it normalizes within days and misses the recovery window.[6] It also treats return-to-learn as secondary and does not include a referral network.
- ScreenIT. ScreenIT is a newer digital SCAT6/SCOAT6 platform. The same structural point applies: it digitizes the sideline and office assessment moment, but it is not a full battery and not a management program.
See full, detailed comparison here
A buyer’s checklist
Hold every platform you are considering, including NeuroLogic™, to the same questions:
- Does it test multiple domains, or just one? Concussion is multifaceted; the testing should be too.
- Is the cognitive test sensitive after symptoms resolve? That is the window return-to-sport decisions live in.
- Is the cognitive test reliable on repeat testing, with documented test-retest reliability?
- Can patients test remotely on their own phone, and can staff screen on the sideline?
- Does it cover the full arc from baseline through injury, recovery, and clearance?
- Does it communicate with stakeholders automatically at every stage?
- Does it document properly within the platform?
- Is there a referral path to qualified care when a case exceeds your scope?
- Is it backed by training and ongoing evidence updates?
Ask for documented answers, not marketing claims.
Frequently asked questions
Why doesn’t NeuroLogic™ use ImPACT? Because the published evidence shows meaningful limitations in ImPACT’s validity checks, normative interpretation, and stability over time, and because it tests only one domain. NeuroLogic™ uses DANA, which has shown higher test-retest reliability than ImPACT and the ability to detect deficits after symptoms resolve, inside a broader multi-domain battery.
Is the SCAT included? Yes. The SCAT6 is fully digitized inside NeuroLogic™, with automatic scoring and stakeholder notification. The SCAT is a strong sideline tool; it is included as one part of the battery rather than the foundation of the whole program.
Can patients run the testing on their own phone? Yes. The free Concussion Tracker app runs cognitive, balance, symptom, and mood testing on the patient’s own phone, with results syncing to the clinician dashboard. No computer lab and no hardware required.
Does NeuroLogic™ handle return-to-learn and return-to-work, or only return-to-play? All three are tracked, documented workflows in the same system, each gated by objective criteria with automatic stakeholder notification.
Can a school or sports organization without medical staff use NeuroLogic™? Yes. Non-medical staff can run sideline screening, parents and clinicians are notified automatically, and the certified clinic network is the built-in referral path for cases that need professional care.
Ready to see NeuroLogic™ in action?
If you are a clinic owner, athletic director, school administrator, or sports organization deciding how to manage concussion, the next step is a short walkthrough. We will run NeuroLogic™ against the checklist above with your real scenarios.
Book a demo with one of our representatives here
References
- Wellm D, et al. Diagnostic tools for return-to-play decisions in sports-related concussion: a systematic review. J Concussion. 2023.
- Messa I, Korcsog K, Abeare CA. An updated review of the prevalence of invalid performance on the Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT). Clin Neuropsychol. 2022;36(7):1613-1636.
- Wallace J, Karr JE, Schatz P, Worts P, Covassin T, Iverson GL. The Frequency of Low Scores on ImPACT in Adolescent Student-Athletes: Stratification by Race and Socioeconomic Status Using Multivariate Base Rates. Dev Neuropsychol. 2022;47(3):125-135.
- Burley A. Long-Term Stability of Baseline ImPACT Scores in High School Football Players Across Age Groups. Doctoral thesis. Nova Southeastern University; 2022.
- Dharnipragada R, Naik A, Denduluri LS, et al. Diagnostic predictive values for sport-related concussions: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. J Neurosurg. 2024;140(2):560-569.
- Echemendia RJ, Burma JS, Bruce JM, et al. Acute evaluation of sport-related concussion and implications for the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT6) for adults, adolescents and children: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2023;57(11):722-735.
- Russo CR, Lathan CE. An Evaluation of the Consistency and Reliability of the Defense Automated Neurocognitive Assessment Tool. Appl Psychol Meas. 2015;39(7):566-572.
- Servatius RJ, Spiegler KM, Handy JD, Pang KCH, Tsao JW, Mazzola CA. Neurocognitive and Fine Motor Deficits in Asymptomatic Adolescents During the Subacute Period After Concussion. J Neurotrauma. 2018;35(8):1008-1014.
- Nelson LD, LaRoche AA, Pfaller AY, et al. Prospective, Head-to-Head Study of Three Computerized Neurocognitive Assessment Tools (CNTs): Reliability and Validity for the Assessment of Sport-Related Concussion. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2016;22(1):24-37.
- Bennett R, Slicer K, Stafford C, Cohen M. Bringing ImPACT Home: Remote versus Traditional Administration for Collegiate Athletes. Research Square preprint; 2023.
- Ferris LM, Kontos AP, Sufrinko A, et al. Utility of VOMS, SCAT3, and ImPACT Baseline Evaluations for Acute Concussion Identification in Collegiate Athletes: Findings From the NCAA-DoD Concussion Assessment, Research and Education (CARE) Consortium. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50(4):1106-1119.