Statistical correlation is junk. It's the psuedo science version of rolling the dice. There's nothing scientific about it, and it leads people to bad decisions. It's sad snake oil like this is used so often in today's failing world, and it is one of the reasons why.
In reality it's 0 or 1. For concussions each person is different. Those that get them, tend to get them more often.
Kolb gets them, and he gets them often. The last one was a bad one. The next one? Probably in the range of, not quite as bad to worse than the last one.
Since the metric can sometimes reach the correct conclusion, it's not 100 percent useless, just mostly, but even monkeys and a dart board can sometimes do the same. It really should be the lowest metric used to judge something. Because it never tells you anything real. Just an amalgamation of limited factors that produces a number that is supposed to give someone a basis to judge something and then make a decision on, supposedly with meaning behind it. It's really just a meaningless number. Misused worse than prescription drugs.
Just saying. Not putting this on you, it's a worldwide problem, and the great journalists that put out that piece obviously didn't understand this, probably because it's been so widely wrongly legitimized as a valid process with valid results.
