Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T09:51:56.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The utility of naming tests in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2014

Robert F Coen ,
Nicholas Kidd ,
Aisling Denihan ,
Conal Cunningham ,
Irene Bruce ,
Fiona Buggy ,
Desmond O'Neill ,
J Bernard Walsh ,
Davis Coakley  and
Brian A Lawlor
Brian A Lawlor
Affiliation:
Mercer's Institute for Research on Ageing, St James's Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the sensitivity of the CAMCOG naming subscale to anomia in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients identified as anomic on the Boston Naming Test (BNT); and to compare the sensitivities of BNT, category (semantic) fluency (CF), and episodic memory (Delayed Word Recall, DWR) in detecting AD.

Method: Data from 140 probable AD patients (NINCDS/ADRDA) were analysed. Anomic AD patients were identified (BNT) and the sensitivity to anomia of the CAMCOG naming subscale was calculated. Sensitivity (to AD) and specificity of the BNT, CF and DWR were compared in a subgroup of 60 patients age-matched to controls.

Results: On BNT 81% of ADs were classified as anomic (87% specificity). Of these anomic ADs, 23 scored 6/6 on CAMCOG naming (sensitivity = 80%), and sensitivity fell to 30% using a 5/6 cut-off. Correlation between BNT and CAMCOG naming yielded Kendall's tau = 0.48 (p<0.0001). Compared to age-matched controls BNT correctly classified 70% of ADs and 87% of controls (overall accuracy = 77%). On CF 68% of ADs and 83% of controls were correctly classified (overall accuracy = 72%). BNT and CF were moderately correlated (r = 0.49, p<0.0001). DWR correctly classified 93% ADs and 98% controls (overall accuracy = 95%).

Conclusions: Given its brevity, we recommend the inclusion of a split-half form of the BNT in screening test batteries for the detection of AD. The observed pattern of cognitive impairment is consistent with current models in which semantic memory deficits occur in AD only when the neuropathology extends beyond the entorhinal/hippocampal region to the temporal neocortex.

Keywords

Alzheimer's diseaseAnomiaSemantic memoryEpisodic memory
Type
Original Papers
Information
Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 43 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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

1.Hart, S. Language and dementia: a review. Psychol Med 1988; 18: 99–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Zee, RF. Neuropsychological functioning in Alzheimer's disease. In: Parks, RW, Zee, RF, Wilson, RS eds. Neuropsychology of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993; 3–80.Google Scholar
3.Hodges, JR, Patterson, K. Is semantic memory consistently impaired early in the course of Alzheimer's disease? Neuroanatomical and diagnostic implications. Neuropsychologia 1995; 33: 301441–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Rosen, WG, Mohs, RC, Davis, KL. A new raring scale for Alzheimer's disease. Am J Psychiatry 1984; 141: 1356–64.Google Scholar
5.Huppert, FA. CAMCOG – A concise neuropsychological test to assist dementia diagnosis: socio–demographic determinants in an elderly population sample. Br J Clin Psychol 1995; 34: 529–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Kaplan, E, Goodglass, H, Weintraub, S. Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1983.Google Scholar
7.Williams, BW, Mack, W, Henderson, VW. Boston Naming Test in Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychologia 1989; 27(8): 1073–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Pollmann, S, Haupt, M, Kurz, A. Changes of the relative severity of naming, fluency and recall impairment in the course of dementia of the Alzheimer type. Dementia 1995; 6: 252–7.Google Scholar
9.Coen, RF, Maguire, C, Swanwick, GRJ, Kirby, M, Burke, T, Lawlor, BA, Walsh, JB, Coakley, D. Letter and category fluency in Alzheimer's disease: a prognostic indicator of progression? Dementia 1996; 7: 246–50.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Benton, AL. Differential behavioural effects in frontal lobe disease. Neuropsychologia 1968; 6: 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Hodges, JR, Salmon, DP, Butters, N. Differential impairment of semantic and episodic memory in Alzheimer's and Huntington's diseases: a controlled prospective study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1990; 53: 1089–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Martin, A, Fedio, P. Word production and comprehension in Alzheimer's disease: the breakdown of semantic knowledge. Brain Lang 1983; 19: 124–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Huff, FJ, Corkin, S, Growdon, H. Semantic impairment and anomia in Alzheimer's disease. Brain Lang 1986; 28: 235–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Hodges, JR, Salmon, DP, Butters, N. The nature of the naming deficit in Alzheimer's disease and Huntington's disease. Brain 1991; 114: 1547–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Hodges, JR, Salmon, DP, Butters, N. Semantic memory impairment in Alzheimer's disease: failure of access or degraded knowledge? Neuropsychologia 1992; 30: 301–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.McKhann, G, Drachman, D, Folstein, M, Katzman, R, Price, D, Stadlan, EM. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: Report of the NINCDS/ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer's disease. Neurology 1984; 34: 939–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Washington, D.C., 1994.Google Scholar
18.McKenna, P, Warrington, EK. Graded Naming Test. Windsor: Nelson, 1983.Google Scholar
19.Stuss, DT, Meiran, N, Guzman, A, Lafleche, G, Wulmer, J. Do long tests yield a more accurate diagnosis of dementia than short tests? A comparison of five neuropsychological tests. Arch Neurol 1996; 53: 1033–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Beardsall, L, Huppert, F. A comparison of clinical, psychometric and behavioural memory tests: findings from a community study of the early detection of dementia. Int J Geri Psychiatry 1991; 6: 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Knopman, DS, Ryberg, S. A verbal memory test with high predictive accuracy for dementia of the Alzheimer type. Arch Neurol 1989; 46: 141–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Coen, RF, Swanwick, GRJ, Maguire, C, Kirby, M, Lawlor, BA, Walsh, JB, Coakley, D. Memory impairment in Alzheimer's disease: replication and extension of the Delayed Word Recall (DWR) Test. J Psychol Med 1996; 13: 55–8.Google Scholar
23.Swanwick, GRJ, Coen, RF, O'Mahony, D, Tully, M, Bruce, I, Buggy, F, Lawlor, BA, Walsh, JB, Coakley D: A memory clinic for the assessment of mild dementia, Ir Med J 1996; 89: 104–5.Google ScholarPubMed
24.Folstein, MF, Folstein, SE, McHugh, PR. MiniMental State: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiat Res 1975; 12: 189–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Tombaugh, TN, Mclntyre, NJ. The Mini-Mental State Examination: a comprehensive review. J Am Geriatr Soc 1992; 40: 922–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Welsh, KA, Butters, N, Hughes, J, Mohs, R, Heyman, A. Detection of abnormal memory decline in mild cases of Alzheimer's disease using CERAD neuropsychological measures. Arch Neurol 1991; 48: 278–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Welsh, KA, Butters, N, Hughes, J, Mohs, R, Heyman, A. Detection and staging of dementia in Alzheimer's disease. Use of the neuropsychological measures developed for the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's disease. Arch Neurol 1992; 49: 448–52.Google ScholarPubMed
28.Hodges, JR. The amnestic prodrome of Alzheimer's disease. Brain 1998; 121: 1601–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Petersen, RC. Clinical subtypes of Alzheimer's disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 1998; 9(3): 16–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Storandt, M, Hill, R. Very mild senile dementia of the Alzheimer type. II. Psychometric Test Performance. Arch Neurol 1989; 46: 383–6.Google ScholarPubMed
31.Murdoch, BE, Chenery, HJ, Wilks, V, Boyle, RS. Language disorders in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Brain Lang 1987; 31: 122–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Cummings, JL, Benson, DF, Hill, MA, Read, S. Aphasia in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Neurol 1985; 35: 394–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Huff, FJ, Becker, JT, Belle, SH, Nebes, RD, Holland, AL, Boiler, F. Cognitive deficits and clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Neurol 1987; 37: 1119–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Hodges, JR, Patterson, K, Oxbury, S, Funnell, E. Semantic dementia: Progressive fluent aphasia with temporal lobe atrophy. Brain 1992; 115: 1783–1806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Chertkow, H, Bub, D. Semantic memory loss in dementia of Alzheimer's type. What do various measures measure? Brain 1990; 113: 397–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Hodges, JR, Graham, N, Patterson, K. Charting the progression in semantic dementia: implications for the organisation of semantic memory. Memory 1995;3:463–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Patterson, K, Hodges, JR. Disorders of semantic memory: in: Baddeley, A, Wilson, BAWatts, F, (eds). Handbook of Memory Disorders. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1994; 167–86.Google Scholar
38.de, Leon MJ, George, AE, Stylopoulos, LA, Smith, G, Miller DC: Early marker for Alzheimer's disease: the atrophic hippocampus. Lancet 1989: 672–3.Google Scholar
39.Heun, R, Mazanek, M, Atzor, K, Tintera, J, Gawehn, J, Burkart, M, Gansicke, M, Falkal, P, Stoeter, P. Amygdala-hippocampal atrophy and memory performance in dementia of Alzheimer type. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 1997; 8: 329–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Bauer, RM, Tobias, B, Valenstein, E. Amnesic disorders. In: Heilman, KM, Valenstein, E, eds. Clinical Neuropsychology, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993; 523–602.Google Scholar
41.Hyman, BT, Van, Hoesen GW, Damasio, AR, Barnes, CL: Alzheimer's disease: cell specific pathology isolates the hippocampal formation. Science 1984; 222: 1168–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar