The Boston Naming Test as a Measure of Performance Validity

Erdődi, László A.; Dunn, Alexa; Seke, Kristian R.; Charron, Carly M.; McDermott, Abigail; Enache, Anca; Maytham, Charlotte; Hurtubise, Jessica L.

doi:10.1007/s12207-017-9309-3

Cited by 37 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That observation also extends to the BNT–15 as a PVT: It lacks the ability to differentiate between meaningful nuances of noncredible responding. Although the current results converge with the existing literature in providing empirical support for the BNT–15 as a clinical measure of object naming (Chenji et al, 2018; Katsumata et al, 2015; Park et al, 2014) and with recent studies suggesting some utility as a PVT (An et al, 2019; Erdodi et al, 2018a), the evidence fades in comparison to its signal detection performance as an index of limited English proficiency (Ali et al, 2020; Brantuo et al, 2022; Erdodi et al, 2017a; Stålhammar et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…Further investigating the classification accuracy of the BNT as a PVT has the potential to address this knowledge gap. Despite the variability in test version, outcome measure (raw vs demographically adjusted T - scores), research designs, and sample characteristics, results from several studies have converged in the conclusion that at adequate specificity, the BNT is generally insensitive to noncredible performance in clinically referred patients (Abramson et al, 2020; Erdodi et al, 2018a; Nussbaum et al, 2022; Whiteside et al, 2015). However, in cognitively healthy university students, the BNT–15 was reasonably effective at separating valid from invalid response sets (An et al, 2019).…”

Section: The Boston Naming Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Abeare

Cutler

An³

et al. 2022

Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: The Boston Naming Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Abeare

Cutler

An³

et al. 2022

Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2) Memory: visual span test (Hwang and Lee, 2017 ), Fuld Object Memory Evaluation (Monaco et al, 2015 ), Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire (Troyer and Rich, 2002 ), Boston Naming Test (Erdodi et al, 2018 ), word list test (Lee et al, 2002 ), constructional recall (Lee et al, 2004 ), digit span test (Monaco et al, 2013 ), Corsi block test (Serino et al, 2017 ), and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (Lezak, 1998 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Virtual Reality Intervention on Cognition and Motor Function in Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhu

Sui

Shen

et al. 2021

Front. Aging Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Virtual reality (VR) intervention is an innovative and efficient rehabilitative tool for patients affected by stroke, Parkinson's disease, and other neurological disorders. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effects of VR intervention on cognition and motor function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia.Methods: Seven databases were systematically searched for relevant articles published from inception to April 2020. Randomized controlled trials examining VR intervention in adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia aged >60 years were included. The primary outcome of the study was cognitive function, including overall cognition, global cognition, attention, executive function, memory, and visuospatial ability. The secondary outcome was motor function, consisting of overall motor function, balance, and gait. A subgroup analysis was also performed based on study characteristics to identify the potential factors for heterogeneity.Results: Eleven studies including 359 participants were included for final analysis. Primary analysis showed a significant moderate positive effect size (ES) of VR on overall cognition (g = 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.31–0.59; P < 0.001), attention/execution (g = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.26–0.72; P < 0.001), memory (g = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.29–0.85; P < 0.001), and global cognition (g = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.06–0.58; P = 0.02). Secondary analysis showed a significant small positive ES on overall motor function (g = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.05–0.51; P = 0.018). The ES on balance (g = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.06–0.80; P = 0.02) was significant and moderate. The ES on visuospatial ability and gait was not significant. In the subgroup analysis, heterogeneity was detected in type of immersion and population diagnosis.Conclusions: VR intervention is a beneficial non-pharmacological approach to improve cognitive and motor function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia, especially in attention/execution, memory, global cognition, and balance. VR intervention does not show superiority on visuospatial ability and gait performance.

show abstract

“…Previous research demonstrated that the EI model as a binary criterion (Pass ≤ 1, Fail ≥ 4) produced classification accuracy comparable to traditional freestanding PVTs (Erdodi, 2017; Erdodi, Abeare, et al, 2017; Erdodi, Dunn, et al, 2018; Erdodi, Pelletier, & Roth, 2018; Erdodi & Rai, 2017; Erdodi et al, 2016; Lichtenstein, Erdodi, Rai, Mazur-Mosiewicz, & Flaro, 2018). To validate the EI-5s within the present sample, their classification accuracy was computed against two independent EVIs.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Early bird fails the PVT? The effects of timing artifacts on performance validity tests.

Zuccato¹,

Tyson

Erdődi

2018

Psychological Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to investigate the effects of timing on the likelihood of failing the Recognition Memory Test-Words (RMT) and Word Choice Test (WCT). The RMT and WCT were administered in counterbalanced order either at the beginning (Time 1) or at the end (Time 2) of a test battery to a mixed clinical sample of 196 patients (M = 44.5 years, 55.1% female) medically referred for neuropsychological evaluation. The risk of failing the accuracy score was higher at Time 1 on both the RMT (relative risk [RR]: 1.44-1.64) and the WCT (RR: 1.21-1.50) across a range of cutoffs. Likewise, the risk of failing the time-to-completion score was higher at Time 1 on both the RMT (RR: 1.30-1.94) and the WCT (RR: 1.58-3.75). Established cutoffs failed to reach specificity standards at Time 1; more liberal cutoffs cleared specificity thresholds at Time 2. According to our findings, the RMT and WCT may be prone to false-positive errors at Time 1. Conversely, when administered at Time 2, existing cutoffs may have lower sensitivity, but they are highly specific to invalid performance. Timing should be considered during both test selection and the interpretation of RMT and WCT scores. Using conservative cutoffs for morning administrations and liberal cutoffs for afternoon administrations may be necessary to neutralize timing artifacts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

show abstract

The Boston Naming Test as a Measure of Performance Validity

Cited by 37 publications

References 56 publications

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

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

Effects of Virtual Reality Intervention on Cognition and Motor Function in Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Early bird fails the PVT? The effects of timing artifacts on performance validity tests.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About