Currently, in the United States and over 40 other countries, every child born is screened for 21-hydroxylaase CAH at birth. This test will detect elevated levels of 17-hydroxy-progesterone (17-OHP). Detecting high levels of 17-OHP enables early detection of CAH. Newborns detected early enough can be placed on medication and live a relatively normal life.

The screening process, however, is characterized by a high false positive rate. In one study, CAH screening had the lowest positive predictive value (111 true-positive cases among 20,647 abnormal screening results in a 2-year period, or 0.53%, compared with 6.36% for biotinidase deficiency, 1.84% for congenital hypo-thyroidism, 0.56% for classic galactosemia, and 2.9% for phenylketonuria). According to this estimate, 200 unaffected newborns required clinical and laboratory follow-up for every true case of CAH.

Genetic analysis can be helpful to confirm a diagnosis of CAH but it is not necessary if classic clinical and laboratory findings are present.

In classic 21-hydroxylase deficiency, laboratory studies will show:

Classic 21-hydroxylase deficiency typically causes 17α-hydroxyprogesterone blood levels >242 nmol/L. (For comparison, a full-term infant at three days of age should have <3 nmol/L. Many neonatal screening programs have specific reference ranges by weight and gestational age because high levels may be seen in premature infants without CAH.) Salt-wasting patients tend to have higher 17α-hydroxyprogesterone levels than non-salt-wasting patients. In mild cases, 17α-hydroxyprogesterone may not be elevated in a particular random blood sample, but it will rise during a corticotropin stimulation test.

Although the GOAT has proved useful in acute care, recent research has called attention to some of its drawbacks. The GOAT's assessment of orientation may put too much of a focus on memory as the main mechanism behind orientation. The range of cognitive and behavioral symptoms associated with PTA seems to indicate that the patient's disorientation is more than just a memory deficit. Consequently, it may be beneficial to incorporate tests of other cognitive functions, such as attention, which relate to both memory and orientation.

Another recent study compared the success of the GOAT and the Orientation Log (O-Log) in predicting rehabilitation outcomes, and found that, while the O-Log and the GOAT perform similarly as measures of PTA severity and duration, the O-Log provides a more accurate picture of rehabilitation.

While the GOAT is a useful tool, these results suggest that using alternative methods of assessing PTA may increase the amount of information available to physicians and may help in predicting rehabilitative success. The international cognitive (INCOG) expert panel has recommended the use of a validated PTA scale such as the GOAT or WPTAS for assessing PTA duration in patients with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury on a daily basis.

Before the development of the current tests for the assessment of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA), a retrospective method was used to determine the patient's condition, consisting of one or more interviews with the patient after the episode of PTA was judged to be over. The retrospective method, however, fails to account for the apparent lucidity of patients who are still experiencing substantial disorientation, or the finding that the recovery from post-traumatic amnesia is often characterized by the presence of "islands of memory" (short periods of clarity). A failure to take these facts into consideration may have biased retrospective methods towards underestimating the length and severity of an episode of PTA. Also, the retrospective method relies on retrospective memory, one's memory for past events, which is not very reliable in healthy individuals, and even less so in patients who have recently experienced a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Patients may also unconsciously or consciously bias their answers because they want to appear more healthy or more ill than they truly were, or because of poor insight. The retrospective method is also flawed because there is no standard measurement procedure. Although the retrospective method may provide useful subjective data, it is not a useful tool for measurement or categorization.