B – 90 Does Naming Test Performance Match Clinician-Observed Word-Finding?

Objective Word-finding difficulties are noted frequently in neuropsychological evaluations. This study examined whether performance on language-based neuropsychological measures is associated with, and predictive of, clinician-observed word-finding difficulty during diagnostic interviews. Method A clinic-referred sample of 114 English-speaking veterans passed performance validity testing and completed language measures, including the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery Naming Test (NAB Naming), Boston Naming Test–Second Edition (BNT-2), Visual and Auditory Naming Tests (VNT, ANT), phonemic fluency (FAS), semantic fluency (animal naming), and Stroop Word Reading (Stroop-WR). Word-finding difficulty was coded dichotomously (observed vs. not observed) based on clinician judgment prior to testing. Analyses included t-tests, Mann–Whitney U tests, logistic regressions (adjusted for age and education), MANOVA, and exploratory stepwise logistic regression. Results Observed word-finding difficulty was associated with significantly lower scores on NAB Naming (U= 1117.0, p= .004), BNT-2 (U= 1026.5, p= .001), FAS (t= –2.05, p= .02, d= –0.48), animal naming (t= –3.47, p< .001, d= 0.81), and Stroop-WR (t= –2.90, p= .002, d= 0.71). Logistic regressions identified NAB Naming (OR= 0.59, p= .005), animal naming (OR= 0.86, p= .007), and Stroop-WR (OR= 0.96, p= .015) as significant predictors. Stepwise regression retained NAB Naming as the strongest predictor (OR= 0.62, 95% CI [0.43, 0.89], p= .013). Conclusion Lower scores on naming and fluency tasks were associated with clinician-observed word-finding difficulty. NAB Naming emerged as the strongest predictor, highlighting the clinical utility of this updated, colorful naming test in corroborating clinical observation during the assessment process.