When the SCAT2 was issued, superseding the original SCAT published in 2005, the authors recommended continued reliance on the SAC until prospective studies could be conducted to assess the SCAT2's sensitivity (how good the test is in identifying athletes with concussion; for example, a test which is very sensitive will have few false negatives, rarely missing those later found to have concussion) and
specificity (a test with
high specificity will have few false positives, rarely mis - classifying people
without concussion as having concussion).
There are three features which are worryingly recurrent: (1) the propensity to allege fraud and dishonesty against solicitors
without proper analysis of the facts or proper supporting evidence capable of satisfying the
high (criminal) standard of proof, (2) the overloading of the document and / or (3) lack of
specificity.