ObjectivesThe Sport Concussion Assessment Tool-5 (SCAT5) was published in 2017; however, normative performance within the college athlete population on the optional 10-item word list has not been described. This study reports normative values for immediate memory trials, total immediate memory score and delayed recall of the 10-item word list.MethodsThe SCAT5 was administered as part of the preparticipation medical testing to 514 collegiate student-athletes, aged 17–23 (M=19.65, SD=1.40; 64% male) prior to the 2017–2018 athletic season.ResultsOn the SCAT5’s optional 10-item word list, with a total possible immediate memory score of 30, participants recalled an average of 20.57 (SD=3.22) words over three learning trials, with an average for trial 3 of 8.13 (SD=1.32). The average delayed memory score was 6.59 (SD=1.85). Small but significant demographic comparisons were found. Women scored higher on both immediate and delayed recall, non-native speakers scored higher on delayed recall, and Black/African-American athletes scored lower than White athletes on immediate, and lower than White and Hispanic/Latino athletes on delayed recall.ConclusionThe 10-item word list on the SCAT5 eliminates the ceiling effect observed on the five-item word list of the SCAT3, therefore, increasing its clinical utility in the diagnosis of sports-related concussions. Significant demographic differences suggest use of category-specific norms for sex, native language and race/ethnicity.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has substantially altered the delivery of healthcare for providers and their patients. Patients have been reticent to seek care for many diseases and injuries including concussion due to fears of potential exposure to COVID-19. Moreover, because of social distancing recommendations and stay-at-home orders, patient screening, evaluation, and delivery of care have become less efficient or impossible to perform via in-person clinic visits. Consequently, there was a sudden need to shift healthcare delivery from primarily in-person visits to telehealth. This sudden shift in healthcare delivery brings with it both challenges and opportunities for clinical concussion care. This article is designed to discuss these challenges and opportunities and provide an experiential-based framework for providing concussion care via telehealth. We first provide an overview of a clinical concussion model utilized at concussion specialty clinics from 3 geographically disparate healthcare systems for in-person service delivery prior to COVID-19. We then discuss the creation of new clinical workflows to facilitate the continued provision of concussion specialty care using telehealth. Finally, we examine lessons learned during this healthcare delivery shift including limitations and potential barriers for telehealth for concussion care, as well as opportunities for expansion of concussion care in rural and underserved areas. We also discuss the need to empirically evaluate the comparative efficacy of telehealth and in-person concussion care moving forward.

This paper aims to contribute to the current debate about the status of the "Ought Implies Can" (OIC) principle and the growing body of empirical evidence that undermines it.We report the results of an experimental study which show that people judge that agents ought to perform an action even when they also judge that those agents cannot do it and that such "ought" judgments exhibit an actor-observer effect. Because of this actor-observer effect on "ought" judgments and the Duhem-Quine thesis, talk of an "empirical refutation" of OIC is empirically and methodologically unwarranted. What the empirical fact that people attribute moral obligations to unable agents shows is that OIC is not intuitive, not that OIC has been refuted.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract