BNT–15: Revised Performance Validity Cutoffs and Proposed Clinical Classification Ranges

Abstract

Background: Abbreviated neurocognitive tests offer a practical alternative to full-length versions but often lack clear interpretive guidelines, thereby limiting their clinical utility.Objective: To replicate validity cutoffs for the Boston Naming Test -Short Form (BNT-15) and to introduce a clinical classification system for the BNT-15 as a measure of object-naming skills.Method: We collected data from 43 university students and 46 clinical patients. Classification accuracy was computed against psychometrically defined criterion groups. Clinical classification ranges were developed using a z-score transformation.Results: Previously suggested validity cutoffs (≤11 and ≤12) produced comparable classification accuracy among the university students. However, a more conservative cutoff (≤10) was needed with the clinical patients to contain the false-positive rate (0.20-0.38 sensitivity at 0.92-0.96 specificity). As a measure of cognitive ability, a perfect BNT-15 score suggests above average performance; ≤11 suggests clinically significant deficits. Demographically adjusted prorated BNT-15 T-scores correlated strongly (0.86) with the newly developed z-scores. Conclusion:Given its brevity (< 5 minutes), ease of administration and scoring, the BNT-15 can function as a useful and cost-effective screening measure for both object-naming/English proficiency and performance validity. The proposed clinical classification ranges provide useful guidelines for practitioners.

15-item version of the Boston Naming Test: Normative data for the Latin American Spanish-speaking adult population.

“…When included in the regression models, sex remained significant in those four countries/regions, showing slightly higher scores in men compared to women. The minimal correlation between sex and 15-item BNT total scores is broadly consistent with other studies examining the BNT standard or short forms that have found no or minimal sex differences (Abeare et al, 2022; Fastenau et al, 1998; Fillenbaum et al, 1997; Mitrushina et al, 2005; Olabarrieta-Landa et al, 2015). Moreover, in the four other countries/regions (i.e., Puerto Rico, Paraguay, Honduras, and El Salvador) showing no differences by sex, there may be specific cultural or gender norms impacting the scores.…”

“…All countries/regions in this study showed a positive significant correlation (low to moderate in strength) between education and the 15-item BNT total scores. The models showed that 15-item BNT total scores increased with greater years of education across all countries/regions, thus, adding to previous research obtaining similar effects (Abeare et al, 2022;Fernández-Blázquez et al, 2012;Fillenbaum et al, 1997;Olabarrieta-Landa et al, 2015). Interestingly, education was the only factor that was significant across all This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.…”

From “below chance” to “a single error is one too many”: Evaluating various thresholds for invalid performance on two forced choice recognition tests

“… a Specifically computed to convert traditional scores into a binomial experiment; 1–3, Acquisition trials; Animals, Category fluency (Curtis et al., 2008; Hurtubise et al., 2020; Sugarman & Axelrod, 2015); BC, Below chance level (below the 95% confidence interval around the mean); BIN, Cutoff based on the binomial distribution; BNT‐15, Boston Naming Test—Short Form (Abeare et al., 2022; Deloria et al., 2021; Erdodi, Dunn, et al., 2018); C, At chance level (within the 95% confidence interval around the mean); CD WAIS‐IV , Coding (Ashendorf et al., 2017; Erdodi, Abeare, et al., 2017); CIM, Complex Ideational Material (Erdodi, 2019; Erdodi et al., 2016; Erdodi & Roth, 2017); COL, Color Naming; CPT‐3, Conners' Continuous Performance Test—Third Edition ( T = 90 is the highest score possible; Ord et al., 2020; Robinson et al., 2022); COM, Combination score (FR + true positives—false positives); DCT, Dot Counting Test (Boone et al., 2002; Hansen et al., 2022); Dem ADJ , Demographically adjusted score; DH, Dominant hand; D‐KEFS, Delis Kaplan Executive System (Cutler et al., 2022; Eglit et al., 2020; Erdodi, Sagar, et al., 2018); DR, Delayed recall; DS WAIS‐IV , Digit Span subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (Shura et al., 2020; Whitney et al., 2009); EMP, Empirically derived cutoffs; EWFT, Emotion Word Fluency Test (Abeare, Hurtubise, et al., 2021); FAS, Letter fluency (Curtis et al., 2008; Deloria et al., 2021; Hurtubise et al., 2020); FCR, Forced choice recognition; FR, Free recall; FTT, Finger Tapping Test (Arnold et al., 2005; Axelrod et al., 2014; Erdodi, Taylor, et al., 2019); GPB, Grooved Pegboard Test (Erdodi, Kirsch, et al., 2018; Erdodi, Seke, et al., 2017; Link et al., 2021); HVLT‐R, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test—Revised (Cutler et al., 2021; Sawyer et al., 2017); IOP‐M, Inventory of Problems—29 memory module (Giromini et al., 2020a, 2020b; Holcomb, Pyne, et al., 2022); IR, DR & CNS, Immediate, Delayed & Consistency of Recognition trials (% correct); LM Recognition, Yes/No recognition trial of the Logical Memory subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scale—Fourth Edition (Bortnik et al., 2010; Dunn et al., 2021); LNS WAIS‐IV , Letter‐Number Sequencing (Erdodi &amp...…”

Replicating a Meta-Analysis: The Search for the Optimal Word Choice Test Cutoff Continues

“…The Canadian Sample consisted of 52 adults evaluated to determine their eligibility for disability benefits. The sample was used in previous publications focused on different topics (Abeare, An, et al, 2022; Abeare, Razvi, et al, 2021; Abeare, Romero, et al, 2021; Cutler, Abeare, et al, 2022; Hurtubise, Baher, et al, 2020). Exclusion criteria for all three samples were intellectual disability or dementia.…”