RESUMEN
Confrontation naming measures are commonly used for both diagnostic and clinical research purposes in populations of known or suspected neurodegenerative disorders. The Boston Naming Test (BNT) is the most widely used measure of confrontation naming but has been criticized for outdated and culturally biased content. A new naming measure, the Multilingual Naming Test (MiNT), has been developed that may address these limitations, but research regarding its validity and diagnostic performance relative to existing instruments is limited. The current study examined how the BNT and MiNT performed in a sample of older adults evaluated in an interprofessional memory disorders clinic. Eighty-six individuals (50.0% women) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The average age of participants was 74.2 years (SD = 7.7), and the average education was 16.7 years (SD = 2.5). Most participants were non-Hispanic White (94.2%), and the remaining participants were Hispanic or Black. All participants completed a comprehensive evaluation in English and were administered both the BNT and the MiNT. The strength of agreement as indexed by CCC (.67) was modest for the sample as a whole. Eighty-seven-point five percent classification agreement for impaired vs. normal naming performance was obtained. Eleven cases showed disagreement between BNT and MiNT classification of impairment, with seven of these being borderline score cases. Overall, the results suggest that the MiNT performs similarly at the identification of naming impairments as the BNT, though performance may diverge across different diagnostic groups and may be influenced by age.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The Uniform Data Set 3.0 (UDS 3.0) neuropsychological battery is a recently published battery intended for clinical research with older adult populations. While normative data for the core measures has been published, several additional discrepancy and derived scores can also be calculated. We present normative data for Trail Making Test (TMT) A & B discrepancy and ratio scores, semantic and phonemic fluency discrepancy scores, Craft Story percent retention score, Benson Figure percent retention score, difference between verbal and visual percent retention, and an error index. METHOD: Cross-Sectional data from 1803 English speaking, cognitively normal control participants were obtained from the NACC central data repository. RESULTS: Descriptive information for derived indices is presented. Demographic variables, most commonly age, demonstrated small but significant associations with the measures. Regression values were used to create a normative calculator, made available in a downloadable supplement. Statistically abnormal values (i.e., raw scores corresponding to the 5th, 10th, 90th, and 95th percentiles) were calculated to assist in practical application of normative findings to individual cases. Preliminary validity of the indices are demonstrated by a case study and group comparisons between a sample of individuals with Alzheimer's (N = 81) and Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB; N = 100). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically useful normative data of such derived indices from the UDS 3.0 neuropsychological battery are presented to help researchers and clinicians interpret these scores, accounting for demographic factors. Preliminary validity data is presented as well along with limitations and future directions.