When Healthy Adults Fail the Balance Test
When Healthy Adults Fail the Balance Test
Sheldon Victorine, MS, ATC, CSCS
Published November 3, 2026
Key takeaways
In a study of 416 healthy U.S. Army Special Operations personnel (mean age about 28), an mBESS cutoff of more than four total errors flagged 36.5% as abnormal in that population (Kontos et al., 2022). That is not a general adult workplace rate.
The only significant predictor of an mBESS false positive in that model was a history of motion sickness. Cutoff choice drives the rate: the authors note an earlier investigation used a much higher false-positive threshold of nine total errors than their four. Different cutoffs are not interchangeable.
In 1,234 adults aged 20 to 69, mBESS performance declined with age; sexes were similar overall; obesity effects were present and larger in women (Iverson & Koehle, 2013).
After a whole-body fatigue protocol, BESS errors rose (about 14.4 to 16.9); a rested control group improved. Authors advised against testing immediately after exertion. Balance recovered within about 20 minutes in a companion study (Wilkins et al., 2004; Susco et al., 2004).
No published studies of mBESS after occupational-length fatigue (long shift, night rotation, heat, accumulated physical work) were identified for this article. That is an evidence gap.
Serial BESS testing shows a learning effect, most prominent in tandem stance (Valovich McLeod et al., 2004). Reliability ranges from poor to good depending on how it is measured; averaging three administrations improves reliability (Bell et al., 2011).
In military retest data, mBESS total ICC was 0.59; double-leg 0.73; single-leg and tandem were poor (tandem ICC 0.02) (Kontos et al., 2021).
In collegiate athletes, baselines were poor to moderate for nearly every common concussion tool examined; mBESS had small effect sizes and poor ability to distinguish acute concussion; incorporating baselines did not significantly improve identification (Ferris et al., 2022).
Balance still matters after a head strike. Interpretation of a single score belongs to a licensed clinician. Workplaces can help by documenting context the number cannot carry.
In a study of 416 healthy U.S. Army Special Operations personnel (mean age about 28), an mBESS cutoff of more than four total errors flagged 36.5% as abnormal in that population (Kontos et al., 2022). That is not a general adult workplace rate.
The only significant predictor of an mBESS false positive in that model was a history of motion sickness. Cutoff choice drives the rate: the authors note an earlier investigation used a much higher false-positive threshold of nine total errors than their four. Different cutoffs are not interchangeable.
In 1,234 adults aged 20 to 69, mBESS performance declined with age; sexes were similar overall; obesity effects were present and larger in women (Iverson & Koehle, 2013).
After a whole-body fatigue protocol, BESS errors rose (about 14.4 to 16.9); a rested control group improved. Authors advised against testing immediately after exertion. Balance recovered within about 20 minutes in a companion study (Wilkins et al., 2004; Susco et al., 2004).
No published studies of mBESS after occupational-length fatigue (long shift, night rotation, heat, accumulated physical work) were identified for this article. That is an evidence gap.
Serial BESS testing shows a learning effect, most prominent in tandem stance (Valovich McLeod et al., 2004). Reliability ranges from poor to good depending on how it is measured; averaging three administrations improves reliability (Bell et al., 2011).
In military retest data, mBESS total ICC was 0.59; double-leg 0.73; single-leg and tandem were poor (tandem ICC 0.02) (Kontos et al., 2021).
In collegiate athletes, baselines were poor to moderate for nearly every common concussion tool examined; mBESS had small effect sizes and poor ability to distinguish acute concussion; incorporating baselines did not significantly improve identification (Ferris et al., 2022).
Balance still matters after a head strike. Interpretation of a single score belongs to a licensed clinician. Workplaces can help by documenting context the number cannot carry.
What the test is
The Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) asks a person to hold three stances (feet together, single leg, and heel-to-toe, or tandem) for 20 seconds each, eyes closed, hands on hips, while an examiner counts errors: opening the eyes, lifting the hands, stepping or stumbling, lifting the forefoot or heel, swinging the hip out, or staying out of position for more than five seconds (Bell et al., 2011). The full BESS repeats those stances on foam. The modified version, the mBESS, uses the firm surface only, and it is the static balance measure the current Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT6) begins with (Echemendia et al., 2023).
It is quick, cheap, and needs no equipment. That is exactly why it travels so easily: into clinics, onto sidelines, and into workplaces.
What the test is
The Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) asks a person to hold three stances (feet together, single leg, and heel-to-toe, or tandem) for 20 seconds each, eyes closed, hands on hips, while an examiner counts errors: opening the eyes, lifting the hands, stepping or stumbling, lifting the forefoot or heel, swinging the hip out, or staying out of position for more than five seconds (Bell et al., 2011). The full BESS repeats those stances on foam. The modified version, the mBESS, uses the firm surface only, and it is the static balance measure the current Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT6) begins with (Echemendia et al., 2023).
It is quick, cheap, and needs no equipment. That is exactly why it travels so easily: into clinics, onto sidelines, and into workplaces.
Each stance is held for 20 seconds while an examiner counts errors.
For the first-minutes sequence after a head strike, see Head Injuries at Work: What to Do in the First Minutes. For how concussion at work differs from sport more broadly, see Workplace Concussion: What Safety Teams Should Know.
The false-positive problem
In 2022, Kontos and colleagues gave the mBESS to 416 healthy U.S. Army Special Operations personnel (fit, working-age adults with a mean age of about 28) as part of a larger screening study. Using a cutoff of more than four total errors, 36.5% of these healthy personnel scored in the range that would be read as abnormal (Kontos et al., 2022). More than a third of uninjured adults would have been flagged.
Each stance is held for 20 seconds while an examiner counts errors.
For the first-minutes sequence after a head strike, see Head Injuries at Work: What to Do in the First Minutes. For how concussion at work differs from sport more broadly, see Workplace Concussion: What Safety Teams Should Know.
The false-positive problem
In 2022, Kontos and colleagues gave the mBESS to 416 healthy U.S. Army Special Operations personnel (fit, working-age adults with a mean age of about 28) as part of a larger screening study. Using a cutoff of more than four total errors, 36.5% of these healthy personnel scored in the range that would be read as abnormal (Kontos et al., 2022). More than a third of uninjured adults would have been flagged.
36.5% of 416 healthy special-operations personnel scored above a common mBESS cutoff (Kontos et al., 2022).
The authors were direct about what that means: more than one-third of healthy military personnel had a false-positive finding, which suggests the clinical utility of the tool for identifying mTBI in that population may be limited. They also found that the only significant predictor of an mBESS false positive in their model was a history of motion sickness (Kontos et al., 2022).
If you interpret these tests, two details matter. First, the cutoff drives the rate. The authors note that the false-positive threshold in an earlier investigation was much higher, at nine total errors, than their four. The number that counts as "abnormal" is a choice, and different choices produce very different pictures of the same people. Second, this was a young, fit, selected population. I would not assume an older, more varied workforce would do better.
The number that counts as "abnormal" is a choice.
Age and body composition, briefly
That brings age back in. In a normative study of 1,234 adults aged 20 to 69 undergoing a preventive health screen, Iverson and Koehle found that mBESS performance declined significantly with age. Men and women performed similarly overall, but obese men performed slightly worse than non-obese men, and the gap between obese and non-obese women was larger (Iverson & Koehle, 2013). These were adults screened for significant medical, neurological, or lower-extremity problems. They were not injured. Their scores simply reflected who they were.
36.5% of 416 healthy special-operations personnel scored above a common mBESS cutoff (Kontos et al., 2022).
The authors were direct about what that means: more than one-third of healthy military personnel had a false-positive finding, which suggests the clinical utility of the tool for identifying mTBI in that population may be limited. They also found that the only significant predictor of an mBESS false positive in their model was a history of motion sickness (Kontos et al., 2022).
If you interpret these tests, two details matter. First, the cutoff drives the rate. The authors note that the false-positive threshold in an earlier investigation was much higher, at nine total errors, than their four. The number that counts as "abnormal" is a choice, and different choices produce very different pictures of the same people. Second, this was a young, fit, selected population. I would not assume an older, more varied workforce would do better.
The number that counts as "abnormal" is a choice.
Age and body composition, briefly
That brings age back in. In a normative study of 1,234 adults aged 20 to 69 undergoing a preventive health screen, Iverson and Koehle found that mBESS performance declined significantly with age. Men and women performed similarly overall, but obese men performed slightly worse than non-obese men, and the gap between obese and non-obese women was larger (Iverson & Koehle, 2013). These were adults screened for significant medical, neurological, or lower-extremity problems. They were not injured. Their scores simply reflected who they were.
Healthy adults differ in age and body composition, and their balance scores can reflect that.
That is the same thread as Normed on Athletes: tools built and validated in one population do not automatically mean the same thing in another. Age and body composition are part of the noise a single workplace score can carry.
Fatigue changes the score
Workplace head strikes do not happen to rested people standing in a quiet room. They happen mid-task, on a clock, in whatever condition the work has left someone in.
Healthy adults differ in age and body composition, and their balance scores can reflect that.
That is the same thread as Normed on Athletes: tools built and validated in one population do not automatically mean the same thing in another. Age and body composition are part of the noise a single workplace score can carry.
Fatigue changes the score
Workplace head strikes do not happen to rested people standing in a quiet room. They happen mid-task, on a clock, in whatever condition the work has left someone in.
Recent exertion can raise balance errors, so note what the worker was just doing.
The BESS literature has studied one version of that problem: exertion. In a controlled study, Wilkins and colleagues found that after a whole-body fatigue protocol, BESS errors rose significantly (from about 14.4 to 16.9 total errors), while a rested control group actually improved on retest. The authors' advice was blunt: clinicians should not administer the test immediately after exertion because of fatigue effects (Wilkins et al., 2004). A companion study found that balance on the BESS recovered within about 20 minutes after exertion in that research protocol (Susco et al., 2004). That finding describes the studied condition. It is not a universal workplace waiting rule.
Here is the limit on that evidence. These were short, controlled exertion protocols in research settings. They were not a ten-hour shift, a night rotation, heat, or accumulated physical work. I could not identify published studies of mBESS performance after occupational-length fatigue. That is an evidence gap, not proof that no such data exist. But it means any interpretation of a worker's score late in a shift is working without that reference point.
Recent exertion can raise balance errors, so note what the worker was just doing.
The BESS literature has studied one version of that problem: exertion. In a controlled study, Wilkins and colleagues found that after a whole-body fatigue protocol, BESS errors rose significantly (from about 14.4 to 16.9 total errors), while a rested control group actually improved on retest. The authors' advice was blunt: clinicians should not administer the test immediately after exertion because of fatigue effects (Wilkins et al., 2004). A companion study found that balance on the BESS recovered within about 20 minutes after exertion in that research protocol (Susco et al., 2004). That finding describes the studied condition. It is not a universal workplace waiting rule.
Here is the limit on that evidence. These were short, controlled exertion protocols in research settings. They were not a ten-hour shift, a night rotation, heat, or accumulated physical work. I could not identify published studies of mBESS performance after occupational-length fatigue. That is an evidence gap, not proof that no such data exist. But it means any interpretation of a worker's score late in a shift is working without that reference point.
No mBESS studies after a long shift or a night rotation were identified for this essay.
That is an evidence gap, not proof that no such data exist.
Practice, reliability, and the baseline problem
The test also changes with repetition. Valovich McLeod and colleagues found that healthy young athletes who took the BESS several times in one week made significantly fewer errors, a learning effect that was most prominent in the tandem stance (Valovich McLeod et al., 2004). A systematic review of the BESS concluded that its reliability ranges from poor to moderate to good depending on how reliability is measured, that low reliability has been reported by some authors, and that averaging three administrations improves reliability (Bell et al., 2011). The same review noted the BESS can detect balance deficits where differences are large, but may not be valid when differences are more subtle.
Adult data are sobering. In military personnel retested months apart, the mBESS total score showed only moderate test-retest reliability (ICC 0.59). The double-leg stance was acceptable (ICC 0.73), but the single-leg and tandem stances were poor. Tandem stance reliability was essentially zero (ICC 0.02) (Kontos et al., 2021).
Baselines do not rescue the picture as much as people hope. In a large collegiate-athlete cohort, Ferris and colleagues found that preseason baseline reliability was poor to moderate for nearly every common concussion tool they examined, that the mBESS was among the measures with small effect sizes and poor ability to distinguish acutely concussed athletes, and that incorporating baseline scores did not significantly improve identification of acute concussion (Ferris et al., 2022).
Baselines do not rescue the picture as much as people hope.
What this does, and does not, mean
It does not mean balance does not matter after a head strike. The BESS can detect balance deficits after concussion when the differences are large (Bell et al., 2011), and the international consensus still starts its balance assessment with a static test like the mBESS (Echemendia et al., 2023).
It does mean that an mBESS score by itself (one trial, one examiner, one moment) carries a lot of noise in adults. A score above a cutoff might reflect injury. It might also reflect age, body composition, motion sickness history, recent exertion, unfamiliarity with the test, or which stance happened to wobble. The test cannot tell you which.
That is why interpretation belongs to a licensed clinician who can weigh the whole picture. The studies above were done in military, clinic and athlete populations. They are not workplace-validated cutoffs or workplace-validated pass/fail rules. Borrow them as evidence-informed context, not as a site standard. What workplaces can do is make that clinician's job easier by writing down the context the number cannot carry:
When in the shift the test happened
What the person had just been doing
What they were standing on and wearing
Whether they had taken the test before
That is documentation, not diagnosis.
No mBESS studies after a long shift or a night rotation were identified for this essay.
That is an evidence gap, not proof that no such data exist.
Practice, reliability, and the baseline problem
The test also changes with repetition. Valovich McLeod and colleagues found that healthy young athletes who took the BESS several times in one week made significantly fewer errors, a learning effect that was most prominent in the tandem stance (Valovich McLeod et al., 2004). A systematic review of the BESS concluded that its reliability ranges from poor to moderate to good depending on how reliability is measured, that low reliability has been reported by some authors, and that averaging three administrations improves reliability (Bell et al., 2011). The same review noted the BESS can detect balance deficits where differences are large, but may not be valid when differences are more subtle.
Adult data are sobering. In military personnel retested months apart, the mBESS total score showed only moderate test-retest reliability (ICC 0.59). The double-leg stance was acceptable (ICC 0.73), but the single-leg and tandem stances were poor. Tandem stance reliability was essentially zero (ICC 0.02) (Kontos et al., 2021).
Baselines do not rescue the picture as much as people hope. In a large collegiate-athlete cohort, Ferris and colleagues found that preseason baseline reliability was poor to moderate for nearly every common concussion tool they examined, that the mBESS was among the measures with small effect sizes and poor ability to distinguish acutely concussed athletes, and that incorporating baseline scores did not significantly improve identification of acute concussion (Ferris et al., 2022).
Baselines do not rescue the picture as much as people hope.
What this does, and does not, mean
It does not mean balance does not matter after a head strike. The BESS can detect balance deficits after concussion when the differences are large (Bell et al., 2011), and the international consensus still starts its balance assessment with a static test like the mBESS (Echemendia et al., 2023).
It does mean that an mBESS score by itself (one trial, one examiner, one moment) carries a lot of noise in adults. A score above a cutoff might reflect injury. It might also reflect age, body composition, motion sickness history, recent exertion, unfamiliarity with the test, or which stance happened to wobble. The test cannot tell you which.
That is why interpretation belongs to a licensed clinician who can weigh the whole picture. The studies above were done in military, clinic and athlete populations. They are not workplace-validated cutoffs or workplace-validated pass/fail rules. Borrow them as evidence-informed context, not as a site standard. What workplaces can do is make that clinician's job easier by writing down the context the number cannot carry:
When in the shift the test happened
What the person had just been doing
What they were standing on and wearing
Whether they had taken the test before
That is documentation, not diagnosis.
Interpretation belongs to a licensed clinician who can weigh the whole picture.
And it is the difference between a score and a story a clinician can actually use.
What workplaces should do with a balance score
A balance screen that shows up in a workplace file is not a green light or a red light by itself. Treat it as one data point that needs context and a licensed clinician's reading.
The items below are practice recommendations for documentation and referral culture. They are not presented as proven concussion interventions, and they are not a substitute for clinician judgment.
Practical translation for safety teams:
Do not treat a single mBESS (or similar) score as a diagnosis. Recognition and referral are the workplace job. Diagnosis and disposition belong to an appropriately licensed healthcare professional.
Capture the four context lines above in the same note as the score, with times and who administered the test.
Note recent exertion. If the person just finished heavy work, say so. The fatigue literature is about short protocols, not a full shift, but the direction of the finding still argues against reading a freshly exerted score as a clean baseline.
Do not clear anyone to return to work from a balance score. Return-to-work authorization is clinician-led. The employer applies provider-set restrictions to the job.
If first aiders use a structured recognition worksheet, ICAT supports recognition and referral only. It does not diagnose concussion and does not clear anyone to return to work.
How this page relates to ICAT and the live field guides
Industrial Concussion Institute publishes field guides that are meant to be used on site, not only read once. Pair this page with:
Normed on Athletes for how age and population shape balance norms
Head Injuries at Work: What to Do in the First Minutes for the immediate Recognize, Refer, Document sequence
Workplace Concussion: What Safety Teams Should Know for recognition, referral, documentation and support of the provider-set return
ICAT when a trained first aider wants a structured way to organize what they are seeing
ICAT supports recognition, escalation and documentation. It does not diagnose concussion, and it does not clear anyone to return to work. Medical disposition and restrictions belong to an appropriately licensed healthcare professional. The employer applies those restrictions to the job.
Practical checklist for safety managers
These are practice recommendations for process design, not validated clinical protocols.
Decide who may administer a balance screen on your site, and who may not interpret it as a diagnosis.
Require the four context lines (shift timing, recent activity, surface and footwear, prior exposure to the test) whenever a score is recorded.
Build a same-day referral pathway when a head strike is known or a concussion is possible, independent of any single score.
Keep return-to-work decisions with the treating provider. Do not use a workplace balance score to clear someone.
Train supervisors that "failed the balance test" is a phrase that needs a clinician, not a punchline on the floor.
The question underneath
When a healthy-looking worker "fails" a balance screen, what does your process do next, and who decides what that score means?
If you use the mBESS or any balance screen with working adults, I would like to hear how you handle fatigue, repeat testing, and cutoffs. Contact ICI through the contact page if you want to share a de-identified practice. Leave out anything that identifies your employer or your workers.
Interpretation belongs to a licensed clinician who can weigh the whole picture.
And it is the difference between a score and a story a clinician can actually use.
What workplaces should do with a balance score
A balance screen that shows up in a workplace file is not a green light or a red light by itself. Treat it as one data point that needs context and a licensed clinician's reading.
The items below are practice recommendations for documentation and referral culture. They are not presented as proven concussion interventions, and they are not a substitute for clinician judgment.
Practical translation for safety teams:
Do not treat a single mBESS (or similar) score as a diagnosis. Recognition and referral are the workplace job. Diagnosis and disposition belong to an appropriately licensed healthcare professional.
Capture the four context lines above in the same note as the score, with times and who administered the test.
Note recent exertion. If the person just finished heavy work, say so. The fatigue literature is about short protocols, not a full shift, but the direction of the finding still argues against reading a freshly exerted score as a clean baseline.
Do not clear anyone to return to work from a balance score. Return-to-work authorization is clinician-led. The employer applies provider-set restrictions to the job.
If first aiders use a structured recognition worksheet, ICAT supports recognition and referral only. It does not diagnose concussion and does not clear anyone to return to work.
How this page relates to ICAT and the live field guides
Industrial Concussion Institute publishes field guides that are meant to be used on site, not only read once. Pair this page with:
Normed on Athletes for how age and population shape balance norms
Head Injuries at Work: What to Do in the First Minutes for the immediate Recognize, Refer, Document sequence
Workplace Concussion: What Safety Teams Should Know for recognition, referral, documentation and support of the provider-set return
ICAT when a trained first aider wants a structured way to organize what they are seeing
ICAT supports recognition, escalation and documentation. It does not diagnose concussion, and it does not clear anyone to return to work. Medical disposition and restrictions belong to an appropriately licensed healthcare professional. The employer applies those restrictions to the job.
Practical checklist for safety managers
These are practice recommendations for process design, not validated clinical protocols.
Decide who may administer a balance screen on your site, and who may not interpret it as a diagnosis.
Require the four context lines (shift timing, recent activity, surface and footwear, prior exposure to the test) whenever a score is recorded.
Build a same-day referral pathway when a head strike is known or a concussion is possible, independent of any single score.
Keep return-to-work decisions with the treating provider. Do not use a workplace balance score to clear someone.
Train supervisors that "failed the balance test" is a phrase that needs a clinician, not a punchline on the floor.
The question underneath
When a healthy-looking worker "fails" a balance screen, what does your process do next, and who decides what that score means?
If you use the mBESS or any balance screen with working adults, I would like to hear how you handle fatigue, repeat testing, and cutoffs. Contact ICI through the contact page if you want to share a de-identified practice. Leave out anything that identifies your employer or your workers.
Bell DR, Guskiewicz KM, Clark MA, Padua DA. Systematic review of the Balance Error Scoring System. *Sports Health.* 2011;3(3):287-295 (PMID 23016020).
Echemendia RJ, et al. Introducing the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 6 (SCAT6). *Br J Sports Med.* 2023;57(11):619-621 (PMID 37316207).
Kontos AP, et al. False-positive rates and associated risk factors on the Vestibular-Ocular Motor Screening and modified Balance Error Scoring System in US military personnel. *J Athl Train.* 2022;57(5):458-463 (DOI 10.4085/1062-6050-0094.21).
Iverson GL, Koehle MS. Normative data for the modified Balance Error Scoring System in adults. *Brain Inj.* 2013;27(5):596-599 (PMID 23473405).
Wilkins JC, et al. Performance on the Balance Error Scoring System decreases after fatigue. *J Athl Train.* 2004;39(2):156-161.
Susco TM, et al. Balance recovers within 20 minutes after exertion as measured by the Balance Error Scoring System. *J Athl Train.* 2004;39(3):241-246.
Valovich McLeod TC, et al. Serial administration of clinical concussion assessments and learning effects in healthy young athletes. *Clin J Sport Med.* 2004;14(5):287-295 (PMID 15377968).
Kontos AP, et al. Test-retest reliability of the VOMS tool and mBESS in US military personnel. *J Sci Med Sport.* 2021;24(3):264-268 (DOI 10.1016/j.jsams.2020.08.012).
Ferris LM, et al. Utility of VOMS, SCAT3, and ImPACT baseline evaluations for acute concussion identification in collegiate athletes (CARE Consortium). *Am J Sports Med.* 2022;50(4):1106-1119 (DOI 10.1177/03635465211072261).
All sources should be listed with summaries on ICI's Research page when reference IDs are mapped at publish time.
Bell DR, Guskiewicz KM, Clark MA, Padua DA. Systematic review of the Balance Error Scoring System. *Sports Health.* 2011;3(3):287-295 (PMID 23016020).
Echemendia RJ, et al. Introducing the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 6 (SCAT6). *Br J Sports Med.* 2023;57(11):619-621 (PMID 37316207).
Kontos AP, et al. False-positive rates and associated risk factors on the Vestibular-Ocular Motor Screening and modified Balance Error Scoring System in US military personnel. *J Athl Train.* 2022;57(5):458-463 (DOI 10.4085/1062-6050-0094.21).
Iverson GL, Koehle MS. Normative data for the modified Balance Error Scoring System in adults. *Brain Inj.* 2013;27(5):596-599 (PMID 23473405).
Wilkins JC, et al. Performance on the Balance Error Scoring System decreases after fatigue. *J Athl Train.* 2004;39(2):156-161.
Susco TM, et al. Balance recovers within 20 minutes after exertion as measured by the Balance Error Scoring System. *J Athl Train.* 2004;39(3):241-246.
Valovich McLeod TC, et al. Serial administration of clinical concussion assessments and learning effects in healthy young athletes. *Clin J Sport Med.* 2004;14(5):287-295 (PMID 15377968).
Kontos AP, et al. Test-retest reliability of the VOMS tool and mBESS in US military personnel. *J Sci Med Sport.* 2021;24(3):264-268 (DOI 10.1016/j.jsams.2020.08.012).
Ferris LM, et al. Utility of VOMS, SCAT3, and ImPACT baseline evaluations for acute concussion identification in collegiate athletes (CARE Consortium). *Am J Sports Med.* 2022;50(4):1106-1119 (DOI 10.1177/03635465211072261).
All sources should be listed with summaries on ICI's Research page when reference IDs are mapped at publish time.
Sheldon Victorine, MS, ATC, CSCS, is the Founder and Lead Researcher of the Industrial Concussion Institute. He specializes in workplace health, safety and ergonomics, with a clinical foundation as a certified athletic trainer and NSCA Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, after 7 years in the U.S. Navy. He writes evidence-informed tools and training that help workplaces recognize head injuries, refer workers to care and document what happened.
Sheldon Victorine, MS, ATC, CSCS, is the Founder and Lead Researcher of the Industrial Concussion Institute. He specializes in workplace health, safety and ergonomics, with a clinical foundation as a certified athletic trainer and NSCA Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, after 7 years in the U.S. Navy. He writes evidence-informed tools and training that help workplaces recognize head injuries, refer workers to care and document what happened.
Join the conversation
Comments are reviewed before they appear. This is an educational discussion, not medical advice.
Loading comments...