Baseline and a 3-month follow-up evaluation of neuropsychological functioning were conducted for 22 individuals enrolled in the Traumatic Head Injury Program at Coastline Community College, Costa Mesa, CA, using the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM V1.0) computerized testing system. Eight students (Group 1) in this cognitive re-education program had sustained marginal, seven students (Group 2) mild, and seven students (Group 3) moderate brain injury. Comparisons of first session accuracy scores with those of a normative sample (n = 40) of non-brain injured individuals revealed that Group 1 was significantly impaired (p < .001) on only 1 of 6 ANAM tests. Equivalent comparisons for Groups 2 and 3 revealed significant impairments (p < .001) on three and four tests, respectively. However, by the second session accuracy scores were within normal limits for Groups 1 and 2 on all tests, and impaired on only one test for Group 3. Although significant improvement in accuracy of performance was observed from the first to the second session, its potential for revealing additional recovery from impairment was minimal for Groups 1 and 2. This appeared to be due to ceiling effects; that is, above 90% accuracy was achieved by most individuals by the second session. Further, accuracy possessed limited value as a general measure by which to classify people into the three groups, based on scores from either session. Comparisons of first session efficiency scores with those of the non-brain injured sample indicated that Group 1 was significantly lower (p < .001) on two tests, while Groups 2 and 3 were impaired on all six. By the second session, efficiency scores were comparable to those of the noramative sample for Group 1 on 5 tests; however, efficiency scores for Groups 2 and 3, while reflecting improvement on the majority of tests, remained impaired on all tests. The degree of improvement was significant for all groups; and efficiency proved to be a sensitive predictor of group membership, correctly classifying 91% of the individuals as marginal, mild, or moderate. These results support the use of ANAM as a repeated measures assessment instrument for monitoring recovery from traumatic brain injury.