Objective:Previous studies have found differences between monolingual and bilingual athletes on ImPACT, the most widely used sport-related concussion (SRC) assessment measure. Most recently, results suggest that monolingual English-Speaking athletes outperformed bilingual English- and Spanish-speaking athletes on Visual Motor Speed and Reaction Time composites. Before further investigation of these differences can occur, measurement invariance of ImPACT must be established to ensure that differences are not attributable to measurement error. The current study aimed to 1) replicate a recently identified four-factor model using cognitive subtest scores of ImPACT on baseline assessments in monolingual English-Speaking athletes and bilingual English- and Spanish-speaking athletes and 2) to establish measurement invariance across groups.Participants and Methods:Participants included high school athletes who were administered the ImPACT as part of their standard pre-season athletic training protocol in English. Participants were excluded if they had a self-reported history of concussion, Autism, ADHD, learning disability or treatment history of epilepsy/seizures, brain surgery, meningitis, psychiatric disorders, or substance/alcohol use. The final sample included 7,948 monolingual English-speaking athletes and 7,938 bilingual English- and Spanish-speaking athletes with valid baseline assessments. Language variables were based on self-report. As the number of monolingual athletes was substantially larger than the number of bilingual athletes, monolingual athletes were randomly selected from a larger sample to match the bilingual athletes on age, sex, and sport. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test competing models, including one-factor, two-factor, and three-factor models to determine if a recently identified four-factor model (Visual Memory, Visual Reaction Time, Verbal Memory, Working Memory) provided the best fit of the data. Eighteen subtest scores from ImPACT were used in the CFAs. Through increasingly restrictive multigroup CFAs (MGCFA), configural, metric, scalar, and residual levels of invariance were assessed by language group.Results:CFA indicated that the four-factor model provided the best fit in the monolingual and bilingual samples compared to competing models. However, some goodness-of-fit-statistics were below recommended cutoffs, and thus, post-hoc model modifications were made on a theoretical basis and by examination of modification indices. The modified four-factor model had adequate to superior fit and met criteria for all goodness-of-fit indices and was retained as the configural model to test measurement invariance across language groups. MGCFA revealed that residual invariance, the strictest level of invariance, was achieved across groups.Conclusions:This study provides support for a modified four-factor model as estimating the latent structure of ImPACT cognitive scores in monolingual English-speaking and bilingual English- and Spanish-speaking high school athletes at baseline assessment. Results further suggest that differences between monolingual English-speaking and bilingual English- and Spanish-speaking athletes reported in prior ImPACT studies are not caused by measurement error. The reason for these differences remains unclear but are consistent with other studies suggesting monolingual advantages. Given the increase in bilingual individuals in the United States, and among high school athletics, future research should investigate other sources of error such as item bias and predictive validity to further understand if group differences reflect real differences between these athletes.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Oct 1, 2024
J Reyes + 4
Open Access