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

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Kaitlyn Abeare, Laura Cutler, Kelly Y An, Parveen Razvi, Matthew Holcomb, Laszlo A Erdodi
{"title":"BNT-15: Revised Performance Validity Cutoffs and Proposed Clinical Classification Ranges.","authors":"Kaitlyn Abeare,&nbsp;Laura Cutler,&nbsp;Kelly Y An,&nbsp;Parveen Razvi,&nbsp;Matthew Holcomb,&nbsp;Laszlo A Erdodi","doi":"10.1097/WNN.0000000000000304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Abbreviated neurocognitive tests offer a practical alternative to full-length versions but often lack clear interpretive guidelines, thereby limiting their clinical utility.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":50671,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNN.0000000000000304","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

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.

BNT-15:修订的绩效有效性截止值和建议的临床分类范围。
背景:缩写神经认知测试提供了一种实用的替代全长测试的方法,但通常缺乏明确的解释指南,从而限制了其临床应用。目的:复制波士顿命名测试简表(BNT-15)的有效性截止值,并引入BNT-15的临床分类系统作为对象命名技能的衡量标准。方法:我们收集了43名大学生和46名临床患者的数据。根据心理测量学定义的标准组计算分类准确性。临床分类范围是使用z评分转换开发的。结果:先前提出的有效性临界值(≤11和≤12)在大学生中产生了可比的分类准确性。然而,临床患者需要更保守的临界值(≤10)来控制假阳性率(敏感性0.20-0.38,特异性0.92-0.96)。作为认知能力的衡量标准,完美的BNT-15分数表明表现高于平均水平;≤11表明有临床意义的缺陷。人口统计学调整的按比例分配的BNT-15 T分数与新开发的z分数密切相关(0.86)。结论:鉴于其简短性(
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
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
68
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology (CBN) is a forum for advances in the neurologic understanding and possible treatment of human disorders that affect thinking, learning, memory, communication, and behavior. As an incubator for innovations in these fields, CBN helps transform theory into practice. The journal serves clinical research, patient care, education, and professional advancement. The journal welcomes contributions from neurology, cognitive neuroscience, neuropsychology, neuropsychiatry, and other relevant fields. The editors particularly encourage review articles (including reviews of clinical practice), experimental and observational case reports, instructional articles for interested students and professionals in other fields, and innovative articles that do not fit neatly into any category. Also welcome are therapeutic trials and other experimental and observational studies, brief reports, first-person accounts of neurologic experiences, position papers, hypotheses, opinion papers, commentaries, historical perspectives, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信