{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0399746192893401, 'fraction_numerical': 0.025380710659898477, 'mean_word_length': 6.0088888888888885, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
BNT–15: Revised Performance Validity Cutoffs and Proposed Clinical Classification Ranges

Background: Abbreviated neurocognitive tests offer a practical alternative to full-length versions but often lack clear interpretive guidelines, thereby limiting their clinical utility. Objective: To replicate validity cutoffs for the Boston Naming Test—Short Form (BNT–15) and to introduce a clinical classification system for the BNT–15 as a measure of object-naming skills. Method: We collected data from 43 university students and 46 clinical patients. Classification accuracy was computed against psychometrically defined criterion groups. Clinical classification ranges were developed using a z-score transformation. Results: Previously suggested validity cutoffs (≤11 and ≤12) produced comparable classification accuracy among the university students. However, a more conservative cutoff (≤10) was needed with the clinical patients to contain the false-positive rate (0.20–0.38 sensitivity at 0.92–0.96 specificity). As a measure of cognitive ability, a perfect BNT–15 score suggests above average performance; ≤11 suggests clinically significant deficits. Demographically adjusted prorated BNT–15 T-scores correlated strongly (0.86) with the newly developed z-scores. Conclusion: Given its brevity (<5 minutes), ease of administration and scoring, the BNT–15 can function as a useful and cost-effective screening measure for both object-naming/English proficiency and performance validity. The proposed clinical classification ranges provide useful guidelines for practitioners.