Examination of the reliability and validity of the NAB Naming Test in a diverse clinical sample
Johanna Messerly, Janice C. Marceaux
South Texas Veterans Health Care System The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center
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
Objective: The Boston Naming Test, Second Edition (BNT-2) and the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB) Naming Test are common measures to assess visual confrontation naming ability. The comparably newer NAB Naming Test is a potential alternative to the BNT-2, given the latter’s history of criticism. A recent psychometric investigation of the NAB Naming Test demonstrated sufficient reliability and validity in a large clinical sample; however, their study was limited by a lack of ethnic, racial, and language diversity, all of which can impact scores on naming tests.Method: The present study examined convergent and discriminant validity and internal consistency of the NAB Naming Test in a diverse clinical sample comprised of 225 veterans (87.6% men, 51.1% White/Caucasian, 29.3% bilingual, 64.0% with cognitive impairment). All but three participants identified as White/Caucasian, Hispanic/Latino or Black/African American. These psychometric properties were examined for the overall sample and for monolingual (English) and bilingual (English/Spanish) participants separately.Results: As expected, the NAB Naming Test demonstrated sufficient internal consistency and a negatively skewed distribution for the overall sample and monolingual and bilingual participants. Evidence for adequate convergent and discriminative validity was also established for monolingual and bilingual participants separately.Conclusion: In a diverse clinical sample with differing levels of self-reported language status, the NAB Naming Test demonstrated adequate psychometric properties. Although it represents a viable option in neuropsychological practice, continued awareness of patient-specific factors that could impact performance is recommended.
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Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction · Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
参考文献 33
此处列出前 3 条
引用本文 8
按被引量排序,此处列出前 3 条