Is the Boston Naming Test Still Fit For Purpose?
Alexandra Harry, Simon F. Crowe
La Trobe University
阅读操作
确认中在文库中上传 PDF 后可生成中文音频讲解。
摘要与影响
The Boston Naming Test (BNT) (Kaplan, Goodglass, & Weintraub, 1983 Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). The Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Fibiger. [Google Scholar]) is the most commonly used test of confrontation naming in neuropsychology (Rabin, Barr, & Burton, 2005 Rabin, L., Barr, W., & Burton, L. (2005). Assessment practices of clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and Canada: A survey of INS, NAN, and APA Division 40 members. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 33–65. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2004.02.005.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). However, there are significant criticisms of the BNT which suggest that it might not be the assessment measure of choice. These criticisms are that the BNT has poor psychometric properties, is not adequately standardized, and has inadequate norms. It is further suggested that when considered in the context of contemporary conceptualizations of the neuropsychology of naming, the BNT does not adequately capture the processes known to be required for successful naming, and does not sample widely enough from the content domain of “naming”. These criticisms suggest that the BNT is flawed as a measure of naming, and are discussed in detail in this review. Other stand-alone visual confrontation naming tasks are reviewed to evaluate whether any might be viable substitutes for the BNT in clinical neuropsychology. The Naming Test from the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (Stern & White, 2009 Stern, R., & White, T. (2009). NAB Naming Test: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. [Google Scholar]) was identified as a possible alternative to the BNT, however, neither of these tests was designed with reference to models of the neuropsychology of naming, and development of a new test of naming is indicated.
逐年被引趋势
关键指标
同类平均 = 1
同领域 · 同年份 · 同类型
Google Scholar 与 OpenAlex 的被引统计范围不同,数值存在差异属正常。
AI 辅助阅读
依据:摘要
可就本文提问;依据不足时会说明。
学术脉络
学科主题
生物医学Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research · Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
参考文献 78
此处列出前 3 条
引用本文 93
按被引量排序,此处列出前 3 条