Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:41:27.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance on the Boston Naming Test in Bilinguals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2015

Christine Sheppard ,
Shanna Kousaie ,
Laura Monetta  and
Vanessa Taler
Christine Sheppard
Affiliation:
Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
Shanna Kousaie
Affiliation:
Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
Laura Monetta
Affiliation:
Département de Réadaptation, Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada Centre de Recherche de l’Institut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec, Québec City, QC, Canada
Vanessa Taler*
Affiliation:
Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to: Vanessa Taler, School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 136 Jean Jacques Lussier, Vanier Hall, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: We examined performance on the Boston Naming Test (BNT) in older and younger adults who were monolingual English or French speakers, or bilingual speakers of English and French (n=215). Methods: Monolingual participants completed the task in their native language, and bilingual participants completed the task in English, French, and bilingual (either-language) administrations. Results: Overall, younger and older monolingual French speakers performed worse than other groups; bilingual participants performed worst in the French administration and approximately two-thirds of bilingual participants performed better when responses were accepted in either language. Surprisingly, however, a subset of bilinguals performed worse when responses were accepted in either language as compared to their maximum score achieved in either English or French. This either-language disadvantage does not appear to be associated with the degree of balanced bilingualism, but instead appears to be related to overall naming abilities. Differential item analysis comparing language groups and the different administrations identified several items that displayed uniform and/or non-uniform differential item functioning (DIF). Conclusions: The BNT does not elicit equivalent performance in English and French, even when assessing naming performance in monolingual French speakers using the French version of the test. Scores were lower in French overall, and several items exhibited DIF. We recommend caution in interpreting performance on these items in bilingual speakers. Finally, not all bilinguals benefit from an either-language administration of the BNT. (JINS, 2015, 21, 350–363)

Keywords

Picture namingAgingBilingualismDifferential item functioningScoringFrench
Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , March 2016 , pp. 350 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benton, A.L., & Hamsher, K. (1976). Multlingual Aphasia Examination Manual. University of Iowa, Iowa City: AJA Associates.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F., & Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and older bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 859–873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burke, D.M., & Mackay, D.G. (1997). Memory, language and ageing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 352, 1845–1856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colombo, F.T., & Assal, G. (1992). Boston Naming Test - French language adaptation and short forms. European Review of Applied Psychology, 42, 67–73.Google Scholar
Gollan, T.H., & Brown, A.S. (2006). From Tip-of-the-Tongue (TOT) data to theoretical implications of two steps: When more TOTs mean better retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(3), 462–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollan, T.H., Fennema-Notestine, C., Montoya, R.I., & Jernigan, T.L. (2007). The bilingual effect on Boston Naming Test performance. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13, 197–208.Google ScholarPubMed
Gollan, T.H., & Ferreira, V.S. (2009). Should I stay or should I switch? A cost-benefit analysis of voluntary language switching in young and aging bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning Memory and Cognition, 35(3), 640–665. doi:10.1037/a0014981 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gollan, T.H., Montoya, R.I., Fennema-Notestine, C., & Morris, S.K. (2005). Bilingualism affects picture naming but not picture classification. Memory and Cognition, 33, 1220–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollan, T.H., Weissberger, G.H., Runnqvist, E., Montoya, R.I., & Cera, C.M. (2012). Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: A multi-lingual naming test (MINT) and preliminary norms for young and aging Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 592–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, D.A., & Berg, E.A. (1948). A behavioural analysis of degree of reinforcement and ease of shifting to new responses in a Weigl-type card sorting problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 404–411.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo, M.D., & Lopez-Pina, J.A. (2004). Differential item functioning detection and effect size: A comparison between logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(6), 903–915. doi:10.1177/0013164403261769 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanova, I., & Costa, A. (2008). Does bilingualism hamper lexical access in speech production. Acta Psychologica, 127, 277–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jodoin, M.G., & Gierl, M.J. (2001). Evaluating type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement Education, 14, 329–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R.N., & Gallo, J.J. (2002). Education and sex differences in the mini-mental state examination: Effects of differential item functioning. The Journal of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57B(6), 548–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, E.F., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Kohnert, K.J., Hernandez, A.E., & Bates, E. (1998). Bilingual performance on the Boston Naming Test: Preliminary norms in Spanish and English. Brain and Language, 65, 422–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lansing, A.E., Ivnik, R.J., Cullum, C.M., & Randolph, C. (1999). An empirically derived short form of the Boston Naming Test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 14, 481–487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mack, W.J., Freed, D.M., Williams, B.W., & Henderson, V.W. (1992). Boston Naming Test: Shortened versions for use in Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Gerontology, 47, P154–P158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, S.C., Mungas, D., Weldon, M., Reed, B., & Haan, M. (1997). Differential item functioning in the mini-mental state examination of English- and Spanish-speaking older adults. Psychology and Aging, 12, 718–725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nasreddine, Z.S., Phillips, N.A., Bedirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I., & Chertkow, H. (2005). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53, 695–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedraza, O., Graff-Radford, N.R., Smith, G.E., Ivnik, R.J., Willis, F.B., Petersen, R.C., & Lucas, J.A. (2009). Differential item functioning of the Boston Naming Test in cognitively normal African American and Caucasian older adults. Journal of International Neuropsychological Society, 15(5), 758–768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rivera Mindt, M., Arentoft, A., Kubo Germano, K., D’Aquila, E., Scheiner, D., Pizzirusso, M., & Gollan, T.H. (2008). Neuropsychological, cognitive, and theoretical considerations for evaluation of bilingual individuals. Neuropsychology Review, 18, 255–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, P.M., & Doucet, N. (2011). Performance of French-speaking Quebec adults on the Boston Naming Test. Canadian Journal of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, 35(3), 254–267.Google Scholar
Roberts, P.M., Garcia, L.J., Desrochers, A., & Hernandez, D. (2002). English performance of proficient bilingual adults on the Boston Naming Test. Aphasiology, 16, 635–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Frenkiel-Fishman, S. (2005). Attention control and ability level in a complex cognitive skill: Attention shifting and second-language proficiency. Memory & Cognition, 33, 644–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S.J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimizu, Y., & Zumbo, B.D. (2005). A logistic regression for differential item functioning primer. Japan Language Testing Association Journal, 7, 110–124.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada (2011). Population by knowledge of official language, by province and territory (2006 Census). Retrieved from http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/DEMO15-eng.htm Google Scholar
Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H.J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(4), 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teresi, J., Kleinman, M., & Ocepek-Welikson, K. (2000). Modern psychometric methods for detection of differential item functioning: Application to cognitive assessment measures. Statistics in Medicine, 19, 1651–1683.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Zec, R.F., Burkett, N.R., Markwell, S.J., & Larsen, D.L. (2007). A cross-sectional study of the effects of age, education, and gender on the Boston Naming Test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 21, 587–616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zec, R.F., Markwell, S.J., Burkett, N.R., & Larsen, D.L. (2005). A longitudinal study of confrontation naming in the “normal” elderly. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 11, 716–726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zumbo, B.D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modelling as a unitary framework for binary and likert type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.Google Scholar