BACKGROUND: The Boston Naming Test (BNT) is a commonly used neuropsychological test of confrontation naming that aids in determining the presence and severity of dysnomia. Many short versions of the original 60-item test have been developed and are routinely administered in clinical/research settings. Because of the common need to translate similar measures within and across studies, it is important to evaluate the operating characteristics and agreement of different BNT versions. METHODS: We analyzed longitudinal data of research volunteers (n = 681) from the University of Kentucky Alzheimer's Disease Center longitudinal cohort. CONCLUSIONS: With the notable exception of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) 15-item BNT, short forms were internally consistent and highly correlated with the full version; these measures varied by diagnosis and generally improved from normal to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia. All short forms retained the ability to discriminate between normal subjects and those with dementia. The ability to discriminate between normal and MCI subjects was less strong for the short forms than the full BNT, but they exhibited similar patterns. These results have important implications for researchers designing longitudinal studies, who must consider that the statistical properties of even closely related test forms may be quite different.
BACKGROUND: The Boston Naming Test (BNT) is a commonly used neuropsychological test of confrontation naming that aids in determining the presence and severity of dysnomia. Many short versions of the original 60-item test have been developed and are routinely administered in clinical/research settings. Because of the common need to translate similar measures within and across studies, it is important to evaluate the operating characteristics and agreement of different BNT versions. METHODS: We analyzed longitudinal data of research volunteers (n = 681) from the University of Kentucky Alzheimer's Disease Center longitudinal cohort. CONCLUSIONS: With the notable exception of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) 15-item BNT, short forms were internally consistent and highly correlated with the full version; these measures varied by diagnosis and generally improved from normal to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia. All short forms retained the ability to discriminate between normal subjects and those with dementia. The ability to discriminate between normal and MCI subjects was less strong for the short forms than the full BNT, but they exhibited similar patterns. These results have important implications for researchers designing longitudinal studies, who must consider that the statistical properties of even closely related test forms may be quite different.
Authors: M Sotaniemi; V Pulliainen; L Hokkanen; T Pirttilä; I Hallikainen; H Soininen; T Hänninen Journal: Acta Neurol Scand Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 3.209
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Frederick A Schmitt; Peter T Nelson; Erin Abner; Stephen Scheff; Gregory A Jicha; Charles Smith; Gregory Cooper; Marta Mendiondo; Deborah D Danner; Linda J Van Eldik; Allison Caban-Holt; Mark A Lovell; Richard J Kryscio Journal: Curr Alzheimer Res Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: J C Morris; A Heyman; R C Mohs; J P Hughes; G van Belle; G Fillenbaum; E D Mellits; C Clark Journal: Neurology Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Sandra Weintraub; David Salmon; Nathaniel Mercaldo; Steven Ferris; Neill R Graff-Radford; Helena Chui; Jeffrey Cummings; Charles DeCarli; Norman L Foster; Douglas Galasko; Elaine Peskind; Woodrow Dietrich; Duane L Beekly; Walter A Kukull; John C Morris Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2009 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Jonathan D Rohrer; William D Knight; Jane E Warren; Nick C Fox; Martin N Rossor; Jason D Warren Journal: Brain Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Philip D Harvey; Stephanie Cosentino; Rosie Curiel; Terry E Goldberg; Jeffrey Kaye; David Loewenstein; Daniel Marson; David Salmon; Keith Wesnes; Holly Posner Journal: Innov Clin Neurosci Date: 2017-02-01
Authors: Jordan Stiver; Adam M Staffaroni; Samantha M Walters; Michelle Y You; Kaitlin B Casaletto; Sabrina J Erlhoff; Katherine L Possin; Sladjana Lukic; Renaud La Joie; Gil D Rabinovici; Molly E Zimmerman; Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini; Joel H Kramer Journal: Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 4.373
Authors: Hannah E Wadsworth; Kaltra Dhima; Kyle B Womack; John Hart; Myron F Weiner; Linda S Hynan; C Munro Cullum Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Alberto Costa; Thomas Bak; Paolo Caffarra; Carlo Caltagirone; Mathieu Ceccaldi; Fabienne Collette; Sebastian Crutch; Sergio Della Sala; Jean François Démonet; Bruno Dubois; Emrah Duzel; Peter Nestor; Sokratis G Papageorgiou; Eric Salmon; Sietske Sikkes; Pietro Tiraboschi; Wiesje M van der Flier; Pieter Jelle Visser; Stefano F Cappa Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Kimberly C Paul; Fróði Debes; Eina Eliasen; Pál Weihe; Maria Skaalum Petersen Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2020-03-23 Impact factor: 3.636