Concordance between the Noose and Boomerang Items of the Boston Naming Test in an Adult Clinical Sample.

IF 2.1 4区心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology Pub Date : 2025-04-29 DOI:10.1093/arclin/acaf031

Robert M Roth, Mike Almasri, Jared B Hammond, Angela R Waszkiewicz, Maurissa Abecassis, Anna C Graefe, Grant G Moncrief

{"title":"Concordance between the Noose and Boomerang Items of the Boston Naming Test in an Adult Clinical Sample.","authors":"Robert M Roth, Mike Almasri, Jared B Hammond, Angela R Waszkiewicz, Maurissa Abecassis, Anna C Graefe, Grant G Moncrief","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acaf031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: A publisher of the Boston Naming Test recently provided a boomerang item to replace the noose item. We examined response accuracy and speed for these items.Method: Participants were 300 patients seen for clinical neuropsychological evaluation. Noose and boomerang items were administered consecutively, in counterbalanced order.Results: Spontaneous response was correct for the noose in 91% and boomerang in 76.7%. Both responses were correct for 72.7% and incorrect for 5% (overall concordance of 77.7%), 18.3% had correct noose/incorrect boomerang, and 4% correct boomerang/incorrect noose. Time to spontaneous response was faster for the noose. Phonemic cues were more helpful in naming the boomerang.Conclusions: Spontaneous response to the noose and boomerang items showed lack of concordance in 22.3% of patients, and the items showed differences in time to response and benefit from phonemic cuing. These findings raise concern about using the boomerang as a replacement for the noose item.","PeriodicalId":8176,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acaf031","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: A publisher of the Boston Naming Test recently provided a boomerang item to replace the noose item. We examined response accuracy and speed for these items.

Method: Participants were 300 patients seen for clinical neuropsychological evaluation. Noose and boomerang items were administered consecutively, in counterbalanced order.

Results: Spontaneous response was correct for the noose in 91% and boomerang in 76.7%. Both responses were correct for 72.7% and incorrect for 5% (overall concordance of 77.7%), 18.3% had correct noose/incorrect boomerang, and 4% correct boomerang/incorrect noose. Time to spontaneous response was faster for the noose. Phonemic cues were more helpful in naming the boomerang.

Conclusions: Spontaneous response to the noose and boomerang items showed lack of concordance in 22.3% of patients, and the items showed differences in time to response and benefit from phonemic cuing. These findings raise concern about using the boomerang as a replacement for the noose item.

查看原文本刊更多论文

一个成人临床样本的波士顿命名试验中套索和回旋镖项目的一致性。

目的：波士顿命名测试的出版商最近提供了一个回旋镖项目来取代套索项目。我们检查了这些问题的反应准确性和速度。方法：对300例患者进行临床神经心理评估。套索和回旋镖项目按平衡顺序连续进行。结果：套索的自发反应正确率为91%，回旋镖的自发反应正确率为76.7%。两个回答的正确率为72.7%，正确率为5%（总体一致性为77.7%），正确套索/不正确回旋镖的回答为18.3%，正确回旋镖/不正确套索的回答为4%。套索产生自发反应的时间更快。音素线索在命名回旋镖时更有帮助。结论：22.3%的患者对套索和回旋镖项目的自发反应缺乏一致性，且项目在反应时间和受益于音位提示方面存在差异。这些发现引起了人们对使用回飞镖代替套索项目的关注。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 医学-心理学

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

7.70%

发文量

358

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The journal publishes original contributions dealing with psychological aspects of the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of disorders arising out of dysfunction of the central nervous system. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology will also consider manuscripts involving the established principles of the profession of neuropsychology: (a) delivery and evaluation of services, (b) ethical and legal issues, and (c) approaches to education and training. Preference will be given to empirical reports and key reviews. Brief research reports, case studies, and commentaries on published articles (not exceeding two printed pages) will also be considered. At the discretion of the editor, rebuttals to commentaries may be invited. Occasional papers of a theoretical nature will be considered.