Logan Byrd
25 January 2016
English 105
Junior Seau was a 10 time All-Pro, 12-time Pro Bowl selection, and played in the
National Football League for 20 years, with three different teams. Seau was known for his
ferocious play style and left anyone in the way of him and the football in the dust. He
announced his retirement in 2010, and committed suicide two years later. Seau had four
children, and a list of life-long friends that would make any football fan jealous, so why would
he commit suicide at the age of 43?
Maybe if preliminary tests were done
before Junior sustained a concussion
and after he sustained a concussion, he
could’ve seen the impact it had on his
brain and over all health.
The main type of testing done in high school and at the collegiate level in football is
Neurocognitive Testing. Neurocognitive Testing for athletes have been used for a long time but
no one has really tested their reliability and if they actually work. A player would take a “base
line” test before the season and take the same test after the season to compare the results.
Base Line testing that was done before and after the season consisted of “measuring
performance from on 4 cognitive task: identification speed (Attention), detection speed
(Processing Speed), one card learning accuracy (Learning), and one back speed (Working
Memory)” (MacDonald, Duerson 2015). “All tests had marginal or low reliability” (MacDonald,
Duerson 2015). These tests are used to analyze and determine whether or not a player should
return to the field or be sidelined for the rest of the game.
So take Seau for example, if he were to take a Base Line test before the season and after
sustaining a hit to the head and having concussion like symptoms, then he would take another
test and the researchers would compare the data. But lets say Seau didn’t tell the trainers and
team doctors when he got hit if he had concussion like symptoms, Seau would still take a test
after the season and compare data from the beginning of the season.
Computerized Neurocognitive testing has been primarily used to make a decision
whether or not an athlete can return to the field. The reasons that Neurocognitive Testing takes
such criticism is the fact that there are no set intervals to retest that could provide an accurate
reading. Kirkwood et al noted that “what reliability studies do exist use short periods where
tests may be expected to be more stable; they report that few studies span periods such as the
weeks or months that may pass between baseline and postinjury testing.” Also, when used for
athletes in high schools, usually it is done in a group setting, which makes for little control over
the environment that the athletes are in. So in order to control the setting and reduce the
intervals, MacDonald looked at a study conducted by Register et al that dealt with comparing
20 college athletes and 20 high school athletes. For the test they measured “test-retest
reliability using Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing over 3 visits
separated by 24-72 hours” (MacDonald et al). By making the intervals so short, researchers
wanted to see if this was a more effective and accurate way to conduct actual testing for
concussions. Test-retest reliability for the study essentially failed to meet requirements for
clinical decision making or return to play decisions (MacDonald et al). From the information
that they gathered, it was still clear to them that in order to be sure on whether or not
Neurocognitive Testing is reliable, more testing and research were to be done.
Macdonald, James, and Drew Duerson. "Reliability of a Computerized Neurocognitive Test in
Baseline Concussion Testing of High School Athletes." Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine 25.4
(2015): 367-72. Web.