Validity Study of the Boston Naming Test Czech Version
Authors:
N. Zemanová 1; O. Bezdíček 1; J. Michalec 2; T. Nikolai 1; J. Roth 1; R. Jech 1; E. Růžička 1
Authors‘ workplace:
Neurologická klinika a Centrum klinických neurověd
1. LF UK a VFN v Praze
1; Psychiatrická klinika 1. LF UK a VFN v Praze
2
Published in:
Cesk Slov Neurol N 2016; 79/112(3): 307-316
Category:
Original Paper
doi:
https://doi.org/10.14735/amcsnn2016307
Overview
Aim:
The aim of the present study was to examine feasibility and validity of the Boston Naming Test (BNT) Czech version.
Introduction:
An evaluation of confrontation naming is a substantial part of neuropsychological assessment. The BNT is one of the most widely used standardized measures of confrontation naming. However, a feasibility and validity study in the Czech population is still lacking. Patients and methods: We administered the BNT-60 and a broad neuropsychological battery to 154 subjects. A control sample (CS) consisted of 64 healthy subjects and a clinical sample of 52 Parkinson’s disease patients with mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI) and 38 PD patients without cognitive impairment (PD-NI).
Results:
Age and education are significantly related to the BNT-60 total score (age: Spearman ρ = –0.162; p = 0.045, education: ρ = 0.295; p < 0.001). Significant differences were revealed in all BNT scores between CS and PD-MCI (all p values < 0.05), while the only score that significantly differed between CS and PD-NI was the number of correct answers after semantic cue. BNT did not significantly differ between clinical groups. We found the highest convergent validity between BNT-60 and National Adult Reading Test Czech version (ρ = 0.476; p < 0.001). Cronbach’s alpha, as an internal consistency measure, was 0.746.
Conclusions:
Our results replicated the association between the BNT-60 Czech version and age and education in comparison to the original and suggest satisfactory discriminative validity for the differentiation between CS and PD-MCI. Our study presents preliminary percentile values in the Czech population and cutoffs for PD-MCI.
Key words:
Boston Naming Test Czech version – mild cognitive impairment – Parkinson’s disease – validity
The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.
The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.
Sources
1. Rabin LA, Barr WB, Burton LA. Assessment practices of clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and Canada: a survey of INS, NAN, and APA Division 40 members. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2005;20(1):33–65.
2. Strauss E, Sherman EM, Spreen O. A Compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary. 3rd ed. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press 2006.
3. Litvan I, Goldman JG, Tröster AI, et al. Diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease: Movement Disorder Society Task Force guidelines. Mov Disord 2012;27(3):349–56. doi: 10.1002/mds.24893.
4. Kaplan E, Goodglass H, Weintraub S. Boston Naming Test, Second Edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2000.
5. Mack WJ, Freed DM, Williams BW, et al. Boston Naming Test: Shortened Versions for use in Alzheimer’s disease. J Gerontol 1992;47(3):P154–8.
6. Mitrushina MN. Handbook of Normative Data for Neuropsychological Assessment. Oxford: Oxford Univerzity Press 2005.
7. 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(6):828–34.
8.Saxton J, Ratcliff G, Munro CA, et al. Normative data on the Boston Naming Test and two equivalent 30-item short forms. Clinical Neuropsychol 2000,14(4):526-34.
9. Tombaugh TN, Hubley AM. The 60-item Boston Naming Test: norms for cognitively intact adults aged 25 to 88 years. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1997;19(6):922–32.
10. Hawkins KA, Bender S. Norms and the relationship of Boston Naming Test performance to vocabulary and education: a review. Aphasiology 2002;16(12):1143–53.
11. Henderson LW, Frank EM, Pigatt T, et al. Race, gender and educational level effects on Boston Naming Test scores. Aphasiology 1998;12(10):901–11.
12. Ivnik RJ, Malec JF, Smith GE, et al. Neuropsychological tests’ norms above age 55: COWAT, BNT, MAE Token, WRAT-R Reading, AMNART, STROOP, TMT, and JLO. Clin Neuropsychologist 1996;10(3):262–78.
13. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000;25(24):3186–91.
14. Ivanova MV, Hallowell B. A tutorial on aphasia test development in any language: key substantive and psychometric considerations. Aphasiology 2013(1);27(8):891–920.
15. Jurica PJ, Leitten CL, Mattis S. Dementia Rating Scale-2: professional manual. Lutz, Psychological Assessment Resources 2001.
16. Bezdíček O, Michalec J, Nikolai T, et al. Clinical Validity of the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale in Differentiating Mild Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson’s Disease and Normative Data. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2015;39(5– 6):303–11. doi: 10.1159/000375365.
17. Bezdíček O, Lukavský J, Preiss M. Validizační studie české verze dotazníku FAQ. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2011;74/107(1):36–42.
18. Bezdicek O, Stepankova H, Martinec Novakova L, et al. Toward the processing speed theory of activities of daily living in healthy aging: normative data of the Functional Activities Questionnaire. Aging Clin Exp Res 2016;28(2):239–47. doi: 10.1007/s40520-015-0413-5.
19. Dubois D, Burn D, Goetz C, et al. Diagnostic. procedures for Parkinson‘s disease dementia: recommendations from the movement disorder society task force. Mov Disorder 2007;22(16):2314–24.
20. Fahn S, Elton R. Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale. In: Fahn S, Marsden CD, Calne DB, eds.Recent Developments in Parkinson‘s Disease 1987;2:153–63,293–304. Florham Park. NJ: Macmillan Health Care Information.
21. Hoehn MM, Yahr MD. Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology 1967;17(5):427-42.
22. Nassredine ZS. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). 2003. [online]. Available from URL: http://www.mocatest.org.
23. Kopecek M, Stepankova H, Lukavsky J, et al. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): Normative Data for Old and Very Old Czech Adults. Appl Neuropsychol Adult. Available from: URL: doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2015.1065261.
24. Bezdíček O, Motak L, Axelrod BN, et al. Czech version of the Trail Making Test: normative data and clinical utility. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2012;27(8):906–14. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acs084.
25. Krámská L. Hodnocení premorbidního intelektu v neuropsychologii : český test čtení slov. Czech reading test (CRT). Otrokovice: Propsyco 2014.
26. Nikolai T, Štěpánková H, Michalec J, et al. Testy verbální fluence. Česká normativní studie pro osoby vyššího věku. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2015;78/111(3):292–9.
27. Bezdíček O, Lukavský J, Štěpánková H, et al. The Prague Stroop Test: normative standards in older Czech adults and discriminative validity for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2015;37(8):794–807.
28. Wechsler D. WAIS-III: Wechslerova inteligenční škála pro dospělé. Praha: Hogrefe-Testcentrum 2010.
29. Benton AL, Hamsher KD, Varney NR, et al. Judgement of line orientation. New York: Oxford University Press 1983.
30. Bezdicek O, Stepankova H, Motak L, et al. Czech version of Rey Auditory Verbal Learning test: normative data. Neuropsychol Develop Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 2014;21(6):693–721. doi: 10.1080/13825585.2013.865699.
31. Fronek J. Anglicko-český, česko-anglický slovník: nové doplněné vydání. Voznice: Leda 2012.
32. Filipec J. Slovník spisovné češtiny pro školu a veřejnost: s Dodatkem Ministerstva školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy České republiky. 4. vyd. Praha: Academia 2005.
33. Slovník českých synonym a antonym. Brno: Lingea 2012.
34. Čermák F, Křen M. Frekvenční slovník češtiny. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny 2004.
35. Davies M, Gardner D. A Frequency. Dictionary of Conemporary American English: Word Sketches, Collocates and Thematic Lists (Routledge Frequency Dictionaries). Routledge 2010.
36. Heaton RK, Avitable N, Grant I, et al. Further crossvalidation of regression-based neuropsychological norms with an update for Boston Naming Test. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1999;21(4):571–82.
37. Mitrushina M, Satz P. Effect of repeated administration of a neuropsychological battery in the elderly. J Clin Psychol 1991;47(6):790–801.
38. Pagonabarraga J, Kulisevsky J. Cognitive impairment and dementia in Parkinson‘s disease. Neurobiol Dis 2012;46(3):590– 6. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2012.03.029.
39. Nelson H. National Adult Reading Test (NART). Test manual. [online]. Available from URL: http://www.academia.edu/2515150/National_Adult_Reading_Test_NART_test_manual_Part_1.
40. Brusewitz K, Tallberg I. The Boston Naming Test and Swedish children: Normative Data and response analysis. Europ J Develop Psychol 2010;7(2):265–80.
41. Rogríguez-Ferreiro J, Menéndez J, Ribacoba R, et al. Action Naming is impaired in Parkinson disease patients. Neuropsychologia 2009;47(14):3271–4. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.07.007.
42. Cotelli M, Borroni B, Manenti R, et al. Action and object naming in Parkinson’s disease without dementia. Eur J Neurol 2007;14(6):632-7.
Labels
Paediatric neurology Neurosurgery NeurologyArticle was published in
Czech and Slovak Neurology and Neurosurgery
2016 Issue 3
Most read in this issue
- Sympathetic Chain Schwannoma – a Case Report
- Clinical Guideline for the Diagnostics and Treatment of Patients with Ischemic Stroke and Transitory Ischemic Attack – Version 2016
- Validity Study of the Boston Naming Test Czech Version
- Pre-motor and Non-motor Symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease – Taxonomy, Clinical Manifestation and Neuropathological Correlates