No abstract

Objective The Boston Naming Test (BNT) noose item may offend some examinees. One solution is to omit the item, but the equivalence of prorating the BNT has not been established. This study compared prorated BNT (BNT-P) and standard administration (BNT-S) in physical medicine and rehabilitation patients. Method Participants (N = 480) completed the BNT-S in an outpatient evaluation. The sample was 34% female and 91% white with average age and education of 46 (SD = 15) and 14 (SD = 3) years, respectively. Diagnoses included traumatic brain injury (62%), mixed neurologic conditions (21%), and stroke (17%). Item level data were entered; items below the start or basal point were entered as correct. BNT-P was calculated by summing correct responses excluding item 48 and then using cross multiplication and division to estimate the 60-item score equivalent. BNT-P and BNT-S scores were compared via Spearman and concordance correlation (CC) coefficients; reflected and log transformed data were examined with paired t-tests and Westlake equivalence tests. BNT-P and BNT-S difference and scaled scores were examined descriptively. Results BNT-P (M = 52.7, SD = 7.0, Mdn = 54) and BNT-S (M = 52.6, SD = 7.1, Mdn = 54) raw scores showed very strong associations (rho = .99; CC = .99). Transformed scores were not significantly different (p = .20) and demonstrated equivalence (+/−1.5 points). Score differences (M = 0.01, SD = 0.30; range − 0.5-1) rounded to 0 in 88% of cases. Scaled scores based on prorated raw scores were the same in 96% of cases with a one-point difference observed in 15 cases and a two-point difference in 2 cases. Conclusion Findings support the utility of prorated BNT scores in rehabilitation patients.

This study compared prorated Boston Naming Test (BNT-P; omitting the noose item) and standard administration (BNT-S) scores in physical medicine and rehabilitation patients ( N = 480). The sample was 34% female and 91% White with average age and education of 46 ( SD = 15) and 14 ( SD = 3) years, respectively. BNT-P was calculated by summing correct responses excluding item 48 and estimating the 60-item score with cross multiplication and division. BNT-P and BNT-S scores were compared via concordance correlation (CC) coefficients; reflected and log transformed data were examined with equivalence tests. BNT-P and BNT-S scores showed almost perfect agreement (CC = .99). Transformed scores demonstrated equivalence (±1.1 points). Raw and scaled score differences were 0 in 88% and 96% of cases, respectively. Race and ethnicity accounted for item 48 outcomes while controlling for age and education. Findings support the utility of prorated BNT scores in rehabilitation patients.

Objective The Boston Naming Test (BNT) has several short forms do not include the noose item. These short forms have been mainly examined in dementia populations. This study compared BNT short forms with standard administration (BNT-S) in physical medicine and rehabilitation patients. Method Participants (N = 480) completed the BNT in an outpatient evaluation. The sample was 34% female and 91% white with average age and education of 46 (SD = 15) and 14 (SD = 3) years, respectively. Diagnoses included traumatic brain injury (62%), mixed neurologic conditions (21%), and stroke (17%). Five 15-item short forms were calculated: Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD-15); Lansing; and Mack 1, 2, and 4 (Mack-15.1, −15.2). Three 30-item short forms were calculated: Mack A, Saxon A, and BNT odd items. Short forms and BNT-S were compared with Spearman correlations. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for all forms. Impaired BNT scores were determined using norm-referenced scores (T < 36). Area under the curve (AUC) values were compared across short forms with impaired BNT as criterion. Results BNT-S showed strong correlations with 30-item (rho = .92–.93) and 15-item short forms (rho = .80–.87) except for CERAD-15 (rho = .69). Internal consistency was acceptable for 15-item (alpha = .72–.80) and 30-item short forms (alpha = .85–.86). BNT was impaired in 17% of participants. AUC values were not significantly different in 15-item (AUC = .83–.89) and 30-item (AUC = .91–.92) groups. CERAD-15 (.83), Mack-15.1 (.87), and Mack-15.2 (.87) AUC values were significantly lower than 30-item short form AUC values. Conclusion BNT 30-item and 15-item short forms showed outstanding and excellent classification accuracy, respectively. BNT short forms warrant further study in rehabilitation settings.