13 Considerations for the Neuropsychological Assessment of Verbal Abilities in Japanese Speakers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: Although the majority of Japanese speakers live in Japan, there are also large populations of Japanese speakers in the United States of America and Brazil, with more than a million Japanese speakers across the two countries. Only 53% of foreign-born Japanese individuals in the United States report proficiency in English. Although there has been increasing attention to the neuropsychological assessment of linguistically diverse patients broadly in recent years, there are specific considerations unique to Japanese that clinicians and researchers should be aware of when working with Japanese speakers outside of Japan. The aim of the present study is to present considerations and appropriately normed assessments of verbal abilities for Japanese patients. Participants and Methods: A systematic review of cognitive screeners and assessments of verbal fluency, verbal memory, and verbal academic skills that have been translated and normed for use with Japanese speaking populations was conducted. Studies published in both English and Japanese were reviewed. Test content modifications, administration modifications, and relevant cultural and linguistic considerations were synthesized and summarized. Results: One consideration in translation is the use of words that are linguistically and culturally comparable across the two languages. Multiple cognitive screeners and verbal learning/memory tasks have been translated with cultural equivalency considerations (e.g., for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, velvet, church, and daisy were changed to silk, shrine, and lily). In Japanese, there is a one-to-one correspondence between sound (syllable) and graphemes (kana script), compared to one-to-many associations in alphabet-based languages like English. This impacts normative expectations on letter fluency tasks. The hiragana letters, A, Ka, and Shi (fc, fr, L) are recommended because there are relatively large number of words that start with these letters and the number of words generated with these letters showed close to normal distributions in previous research. Unlike letter fluency, semantic fluency is believed to be relatively culture-free and independent of language systems. The Japanese writing system utilizes both phonographic systems where written symbols map onto sounds, and logographic systems, where written symbols map onto concepts. This is in contrast to English, which has a solely phonographic written system. These two separate writing systems complicate the assessment of reading among Japanese-speaking individuals, as there may be a dissociation between abilities in reading in the phonographic versus logographic systems. Acculturation has been shown to impact performance on certain verbal task performances, along with demographic variables such as immigration generation status and bilingualism. Conclusions: Neuropsychologists should be familiar with linguistic differences between English and Japanese such as the one-to-one correspondence between sound and grapheme in Japanese and the use of both phonographic and logographic systems in written Japanese. Neuropsychologists should also be careful to use tests that are translated for cultural equivalence rather than direct translations, and that have been normed for use with Japanese speakers. Finally, general cross-cultural considerations in assessment such as the evaluation of bilingualism, familiarity with the testing environment, and other factors remain essential.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,075 | 0,154 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».