Aging and Word-Finding: A Comparison of Spontaneous and Constrained Naming Tests
Open accessAbstract
This study compared the word-finding abilities of 26 young adults (ages 18-22 years), 26 young-old adults (ages 58-74 years), and 26 old-old adults (ages 75-93 years) on a confrontational naming test (Boston Naming Test) and a more spontaneous discourse test. The groups were matched in terms of gender (7 male, 19 female) and estimated IQ (M = 114). When participants were asked to narrate what they perceived in pictures (discourse test), the older adult groups committed significantly more word-retrieval errors than the younger adults. In contrast, results from the picture-naming test surprisingly revealed higher naming accuracy by the older adult groups. Subsequent examination of the picture-naming items revealed that four items appeared to be influenced by generational familiarity with the item. These results suggest that selection of cohort-free items for picture-naming tests is important when comparing across age-groups, and that tests of discourse may be better measures for assessing everyday word-finding difficulties in healthy older adults.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Older adults spend more time on word finding.
“The fact that older adults spend more time on word finding (Schmitter-Edgecombe et al., 2000) could be associated with the higher error rate in Group R”
From Using Different Error Handling Strategies to Facilitate Older Users' Interaction With Chatbots in Learning Information and Communication Technologies (2021) · cites this paper as Schmitter-Edgecombe et al., 2000
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Age-related effects on speech production: A review
Mortensen, L., Meyer, A. S., & Humphreys, G. W. (2006) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690960444000278 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Lin, W., Chen, H.-C., & Yueh, H.-P. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.785815 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- Schmitter-Edgecombe, M., Vesneski, M., & Jones, D. W. R.
- Affiliations
- Washington State University (US)
- Venue
- Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-08-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 479-493
- ISSN
- 0887-6177 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-5843
- OpenAlex
- W2160247458
- Cited by
- 119
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 0.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
- Keywords
- word retrieval, aging, naming test, Boston Naming Test, spontaneous discourse, picture description, cohort effects, older adults, young-old, healthy aging
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review