Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS · 2026
Assessing anomia across cultures and languages: A head-to-head comparison of abbreviated versions of the Copenhagen Cross-Linguistic Naming Test and Naming Assessment in Multicultural Europe in a multicultural memory clinic population.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Larsen Sofie Krogh, Franzen Sanne, Delgado-Álvarez Alfonso, Lozano-Ruiz Alvaro, Özden Maria, Palisson Juliette, Mukadam Naaheed, Nielsen T Rune
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to make a head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic accuracy and cross-cultural applicability of abbreviated 20-item versions of the Copenhagen Cross-Linguistic Naming Test (C-CLNT20) and Naming Assessment in Multicultural Europe (NAME20).
METHODS: The present study was conducted in a multicultural and multilingual patient sample from memory clinics across five European countries. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess the diagnostic accuracy of C-CLNT20 and NAME20 in classifying dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the influence of demographic and cultural factors on diagnostic accuracy.
RESULTS: C-CLNT20 and NAME20 showed acceptable diagnostic accuracy for dementia with areas under the curve (AUC) of .75 and .82, respectively, but had low accuracy for MCI (AUC of .64 and .62, respectively). Compared to C-CLNT20, NAME20 had slightly higher, but statistically non-significant, AUCs for dementia in both in the full sample and in participants with immigrant background. The diagnostic accuracy of the C-CLNT20 and NAME20 was not significantly influenced by education and immigrant status in the full sample, or by acculturation and use of an interpreter in participants with immigrant background.
CONCLUSION: Both C-CLNT20 and NAME20 are promising brief alternatives to the full versions of the naming tests when time is limited. They also present a promising alternative to other established naming tests by maintaining diagnostic accuracy while showing minimal cross-cultural and cross-linguistic bias.
METHODS: The present study was conducted in a multicultural and multilingual patient sample from memory clinics across five European countries. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess the diagnostic accuracy of C-CLNT20 and NAME20 in classifying dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the influence of demographic and cultural factors on diagnostic accuracy.
RESULTS: C-CLNT20 and NAME20 showed acceptable diagnostic accuracy for dementia with areas under the curve (AUC) of .75 and .82, respectively, but had low accuracy for MCI (AUC of .64 and .62, respectively). Compared to C-CLNT20, NAME20 had slightly higher, but statistically non-significant, AUCs for dementia in both in the full sample and in participants with immigrant background. The diagnostic accuracy of the C-CLNT20 and NAME20 was not significantly influenced by education and immigrant status in the full sample, or by acculturation and use of an interpreter in participants with immigrant background.
CONCLUSION: Both C-CLNT20 and NAME20 are promising brief alternatives to the full versions of the naming tests when time is limited. They also present a promising alternative to other established naming tests by maintaining diagnostic accuracy while showing minimal cross-cultural and cross-linguistic bias.