Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

⚠ Report — not peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 10 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

We do not hold a plain-English summary of this study yet. Use the links to the original below for its abstract and findings.

Why it matters

The Boston Naming Test, which measures the ability to name things. It assesses one aspect of language, and assessing is not treating or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 10/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 3 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 0 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 7 of the 68 points it could be judged on, which is 10 of 100. Total 10 of 100.7 of the 68 points we could judge = 10 of 100

Report — not peer-reviewed. It scored 10 on the same rubric, which is below the 16 cap we apply to non-peer-reviewed sources. Scored zero for journal tier, study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people, randomised / blinded and indexed in PubMed because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 7 of the 68 points we could judge it on, which is 10 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 3 / 10 Report — not peer-reviewed. No journal named, so it cannot be treated as peer-reviewed.
How recent 1 / 5 2001 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 0 / 2 No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 7 / 68 Scored on 13 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 7 of the 68 points we could judge it on is 10 out of 100.
Total 10 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no journal, DOI, so the citation leaves them out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., Weıntraub, S., & Segal, O. (2001). Boston Naming Test.

Vancouver

Kaplan E, Goodglass H, Weıntraub S, Segal O. Boston Naming Test. 2001.

BibTeX

@article{kaplan2001-1443560d,
  author = {Kaplan, Edith and Goodglass, Harold and Weıntraub, Sandra and Segal, Osa},
  title  = {{Boston Naming Test}},
  year   = {2001}
}

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →