Some 1.6 to 3.8 million sports-related concussions occur annually in the United States. Utilization of test batteries and exercise protocols are recommended to ensure athletes recover completely. Many batteries involve response time (RT) tests, which show response time increases post concussion. A major limitation of RT tests is that all are done in static position. Additionally, many studies show a lingering effect on RT. The addition of RT tests to check for lingering symptoms could be beneficial. The purpose of this study was to see if significant differences could be found in RT tests involving dynamic movement between healthy studentathletes and those recently recovered from a concussion. Sixteen student athletes from a major southeastern university were recruited;​ half were healthy studentathletes (HSA), and half were recently recovered student-athletes (RRSA) from a concussion. Both groups were tested on two random choice response time tasks with dynamic movement using Quickboard (LLC, Memphis, TN). The first task, a delayed choice response time task was done with a 3-5 s delay after each stimulus;​ the second task was a continuous choice response time task. There were no significant differences between the two groups for either test. In the delayed choice response time task, (U=31, p=0.916), RRSA mean time was 0.68 ± 0.067 s;​ HSA mean time was 0.70 ± 0.068 s. In the continuous choice response time task (U=25, p=0.401), RRSA mean time was 21.63 ± 2.46 s and HSA mean time was 20.86 ± 2.92 s. There were no errors in the delayed choice response time task. Errors were made in the continuous choice response time task, but with no significant differences (U=27, p=0.765). RRSA mean error rate was 0.75 + 1.43 s;​ HSA mean error rate was 0.875 ± 0.99 s. This study tested RRSA when deemed fully recovered. One reason RT may be similar is that university officials didn’t allow RRSA to be tested until recovered, therefore response times could have recovered. Previous studies were done within a week of their concussions. Another reason was the low statistical power. It’s possible a larger sample size could lead to a statistical difference.