背景:波士顿命名测试(BNT)是评估失范最广泛使用的方法。然而,它因未能区分失范的潜在认知过程而受到批评。
目的:我们在患有多种神经退行性痴呆(NDD)的样本中验证了BNT的彩色图片版本(CP-BNT)。我们还验证了CP-BNT综合指数在NDD组之间的差异能力。
方法:本研究包括阿尔茨海默病(n=132),语义变异原发性进行性失语症(svPPA,n=53),非svPPA(n=33),后皮质萎缩(PCA,n=35),和正常对照(n=110)。我们评估了CP-BNT的心理测量特性,用于自发命名(SN),语义提示和单词识别提示的正确响应百分比(%SC,%WR)。接收机工作特性分析用于检查SN单独和综合指标(SN,%SC,和%WR)。
结果:CP-BNT具有足够的内部一致性,良好的收敛性,分歧的有效性,和标准有效性。CP-BNT的不同指标表现出不同的认知基础。类别流畅性是SN的最强预测因子(β=0.46,p<0.001)。听觉理解测试与%WR高度相关(句子理解:β=0.22,p=0.001;单词理解:β=0.20,p=0.001),而较低的视觉空间评分预测%SC(β=-0.2,p=0.001)。在区分NDD时,综合指数比单独的SN具有更好的可预测性,尤其是PCA与非svPPA(曲线下面积从63.9%增加到81.2%)。
结论:CP-BNT是一种与语言高度相关的测试,具有足够的信度和效度。综合指数可以提供SN以外的更多差异信息,应在临床实践中使用。
The Boston Naming Test (BNT) is the most widely used measure to assess anomia. However, it has been criticized for failing to differentiate the underlying cognitive process of anomia.
We validated the color-picture version of BNT (CP-BNT) in a sample with diverse neurodegenerative dementia diseases (NDDs). We also verified the differential ability of the composite indices of CP-BNT across NDDs groups.
The present study included Alzheimer\'s disease (n = 132), semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (svPPA, n = 53), non-svPPA (n = 33), posterior cortical atrophy (PCA, n = 35), and normal controls (n = 110). We evaluated psychometric properties of CP-BNT for the spontaneous naming (SN), the percentage of correct responses on semantic cuing and word recognition cuing (% SC, % WR). Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to examine the discriminatory power of SN alone and the composite indices (SN, % SC, and % WR).
The CP-BNT had sufficient internal consistency, good convergent, divergent validity, and criterion validity. Different indices of CP-BNT demonstrated distinct cognitive underpinnings. Category fluency was the strongest predictor of SN (β= 0.46, p < 0.001). Auditory comprehension tests highly associated with % WR (Sentence comprehension: β= 0.22, p = 0.001; Word comprehension: β= 0.20, p = 0.001), whereas a lower visuospatial score predicted % SC (β= -0.2, p = 0.001). Composite indices had better predictability than the SN alone when differentiating between NDDs, especially for PCA versus non-svPPA (area under the curve increased from 63.9% to 81.2%).
The CP-BNT is a highly linguistically relevant test with sufficient reliability and validity. Composite indices could provide more differential information beyond SN and should be used in clinical practice.