Abstract Objective The Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT), fifth Edition, Symptom Evaluation (S5SE) differs from previous versions by having examinees report trait (i.e. “typical” feelings) as opposed to state (i.e., “how you feel right now”) concussion-like symptoms at baseline. This study assessed differences among, and convergent validity of, scores on the S5SE, SCAT3 Symptom Evaluation (S3SE), and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-18). Methods A total of 113 University of Florida varsity athletes completed symptom questionnaires on the same day in a counterbalanced administration. The final sample consisted of 94 participants (mean age ± SD = 18.4 ± 0.8 years, 57% male, 65% white) from 17 sports. We assessed convergent validity using Spearman rank-order correlations. Within-participant differences were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests. We qualitatively described free-response answers to the S5SE question that asks, “if not feeling 100%, why?”. Results S5SE total severity score demonstrated adequate convergent validity with both the S3SE (rho = .407, p < .001) and BSI-18 (rho = .432, p < .001). Domain-specific analyses indicated variable convergent validity (rho < 0.4 to rho > 0.6). Severity scores did not differ between the S3SE and S5SE (p = .500), but 24.5% of participants reported S3SE > S5SE and 34.0% S5SE > S3SE. Three themes emerged from qualitative examination of reasons for “not feeling 100%”: (1) tiredness/sleep, (2) adjustment difficulties, and (3) academic/athletic stress. Conclusions Adequate convergent validity exists between SCAT5 and SCAT3 symptom severity in collegiate athletes. However, most examinees report different baseline symptom severity when asked to describe their trait (S5SE) versus state symptoms (S3SE). Clinicians should consider using the new SCAT5 Symptom Evaluation as a screening tool for identifying otherwise healthy or “undiagnosed” individuals who would benefit from targeted interventions.