Unveiling the Distinctions: Computer Versus Sport-Specific Neurocognitive Tests

CONTEXT: Traditional assessments of high-order neurocognitive functions are conducted using pen and paper or computer-based tests; this neglects the complex motor actions athletes have to make in team ball sports. Previous research has not explored the combination of neurocognitive functions and motor demands through complex tasks for team ball sport athletes. The primary aim of the present study was to determine the construct validity of agility-based neurocognitive tests of working memory (WM) and inhibition.

METHODS: Twenty-seven athletes (5 females; mean age 24.2 [4.7] y; height 183.6 [9.1] cm; body mass 77.5 [11.2] kg) participated in the construct validity assessments that included computer-based tests (working memory capacity and stop-signal reaction time) and sport-specific assessments performed on the SpeedCourt system.

RESULTS: Construct validity analysis of sport-specific working memory yielded acceptable construct validity (r = .465, P < .05), whereas the sport-specific stop-signal task resulted in low construct validity (r = .179, P > .05). The poor construct validity results highlight the large variance between computer-based and sport-specific neurocognitive assessments.

CONCLUSION: Sport-specific assessments are more complex and include more degrees of freedom potentially due to athletes' center of mass displacement during task execution. These findings suggest that future research should focus more on the development of sport-specific assessments. These should include the cognitive and motor demands encountered during practice and competition, not use computer-based/pen and paper assessments for return to play decisions.