Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Research Article

Assessing the Discriminant Ability, Reliability, and Comparability of Multiple Short Forms of the Boston Naming Test in an Alzheimer's Disease Center Cohort

Katsumata Y.a · Mathews M.g · Abner E.L.b, g · Jicha G.A.c, g · Caban-Holt A.d, g · Smith C.D.c, g · Nelson P.T.e, g · Kryscio R.J.a,f,g · Schmitt F.A.c,d,g · Fardo D.W.a, g

Author affiliations

Departments of aBiostatistics, bEpidemiology, cNeurology, dBehavioral Science, ePathology and fStatistics, and gSanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky., USA

Related Articles for ""

Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2015;39:215-227

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information










I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Login Information





Contact Information










I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00


Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Research Article

Accepted: November 21, 2014
Published online: January 21, 2015
Issue release date: February 2015

Number of Print Pages: 13
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 4

ISSN: 1420-8008 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9824 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/DEM

Abstract

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.

© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Rohrer JD, et al: Word-finding difficulty: a clinical analysis of the progressive aphasias. Brain 2008;131:8-38.
  2. Jacobs DM, et al: Neuropsychological detection and characterization of preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Neurology 1995;45:957-962.
  3. Hodges JR, Salmon DP, Butters N: Semantic memory impairment in Alzheimer's disease: failure of access or degraded knowledge? Neuropsychologia 1992;30:301-314.
  4. Kaplan E, et al: Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger, 1983.
  5. Schmitt FA, et al: A brief instrument to assess treatment response in the patient with advanced Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2009;23:377-383.
  6. Morris JC, et al: The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD). Part I. Clinical and neuropsychological assessment of Alzheimer's disease. Neurology 1989;39:1159-1165.
  7. Fillenbaum G, Woodbury M: Typology of Alzheimer's disease: findings from CERAD data. Aging Ment Health 1998;2:105-127.
    External Resources
  8. Sotaniemi M, et al: CERAD - neuropsychological battery in screening mild Alzheimer's disease. Acta Neurol Scand 2012;125:16-23.
  9. Lansing AE, et al: An empirically derived short form of the Boston naming test. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 1999;14:481-487.
  10. Mack WJ, et al: Boston Naming Test: shortened versions for use in Alzheimer's disease. J Gerontol 1992;47:P154-P158.
  11. Williams BW, Mack W, Henderson VW: Boston Naming Test in Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychologia 1989;27:1073-1079.
  12. Saxton J, et al: Normative data on the Boston Naming Test and two equivalent 30-item short forms. Clin Neuropsychol 2000;14:526-534.
  13. Graves RE, et al: Boston naming test short forms: a comparison of previous forms with new item response theory based forms. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2004;26:891-902.
  14. Weintraub S, et al: The Alzheimer's Disease Centers' Uniform Data Set (UDS): the neuropsychologic test battery. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2009;23:91-101.
  15. Gollan TH, et al: Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: a Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) and preliminary norms for young and aging Spanish-English bilinguals. Biling (Camb Engl) 2012;15:594-615.
  16. Schmitt FA, et al: University of Kentucky Sanders-Brown healthy brain aging volunteers: donor characteristics, procedures and neuropathology. Curr Alzheimer Res 2012;9:724-733.
  17. Riley KP, Snowdon DA, Markesbery WR: Alzheimer's neurofibrillary pathology and the spectrum of cognitive function: findings from the Nun Study. Ann Neurol 2002;51:567-577.
  18. Bennett DA, et al: Overview and findings from the religious orders study. Curr Alzheimer Res 2012;9:628-645.
  19. Katz MJ, et al: Age-specific and sex-specific prevalence and incidence of mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and Alzheimer dementia in blacks and whites: a report from the Einstein Aging Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2012;26:335-343.
  20. Howieson DB, et al: Neurologic function in the optimally healthy oldest old. Neuropsychological evaluation. Neurology 1993;43:1882-1886.
  21. Tsai R, et al: Potentially inappropriate medication use in individuals with mild cognitive impairment: results from the Kerala Einstein Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012;60:1369-1370.
  22. Nelson PT, et al: Modeling the association between 43 different clinical and pathological variables and the severity of cognitive impairment in a large autopsy cohort of elderly persons. Brain Pathol 2010;20:66-79.
  23. Beekly DL, et al: The National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) database: the Uniform Data Set. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2007;21:249-258.
  24. Fastenau PS, Denburg NL, Mauer BA: Parallel short forms for the Boston Naming Test: psychometric properties and norms for older adults. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1998;20:828-834.
  25. Terwee CB, et al: Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:34-42.
  26. R Development Core Team: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013.
  27. Mathews M, et al: Diagnostic accuracy and practice effects in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set neuropsychological battery. Alzheimers Dement 2014;10:675-683.
  28. Petersen RC, et al: Mild cognitive impairment: a concept in evolution. J Intern Med 2014;275:214-228.
  29. Jicha GA, et al: Clinical features of mild cognitive impairment differ in the research and tertiary clinic settings. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2008;26:187-192.
  30. Rountree SD, et al: Importance of subtle amnestic and nonamnestic deficits in mild cognitive impairment: prognosis and conversion to dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2007;24:476-482.
  31. Teng E, et al: Persistence of neuropsychological testing deficits in mild cognitive impairment. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2009;28:168-178.
  32. Mathews M, et al: CERAD practice effects and attrition bias in a dementia prevention trial. Int Psychogeriatr 2013;25:1115-1123.
  33. Burkhart CS, et al: Evaluation of a summary score of cognitive performance for use in trials in perioperative and critical care. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2011;31:451-459.
  34. Welch LW, et al: Educational and gender normative data for the Boston Naming Test in a group of older adults. Brain Lang 1996;53:260-266.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Research Article

Accepted: November 21, 2014
Published online: January 21, 2015
Issue release date: February 2015

Number of Print Pages: 13
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 4

ISSN: 1420-8008 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9824 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/DEM


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.