The TDQ-60 Tr—a Picture-Naming Test to Assess Anomia in Turkish Adults and the Elderly: Normative Data and Validation Study in Alzheimer’s Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Anomia is defined by difficulty in retrieving content words like nouns and verbs from long-term memory, independent of any impairments related to articulatory movements or motor speech execution. The tools for measuring picture naming, the conventional method for assessing anomia, are very limited in Turkey. The aim of this study was to adapt the Test de Dénomination de Québec-60 images/Quebec picture-naming test-60 pictures (TDQ-60), a color picture-naming test for adults and the elderly into Turkish, establish its validity, and develop normative data adapted to the Turkish population to address this gap. METHOD: We conducted three separate studies. The objective of Study 1 was to culturally adapt the Test de Dénomination de Québec-60 images. In Study 2, we developed normative data for the TDQ-60 Tr adapted to the adult and elderly population in Turkey based on the performance of 414 community residents aged 18 years and older. In Study 3, the known-group validity, the convergent validity, and the test-retest validity of the TDQ-60 Tr were determined. RESULTS: The results show that the TDQ-60 Tr is reliable in distinguishing participants with Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment from healthy participants. The TDQ-60 Tr measures the same cognitive construct as the Boston Naming Test and also has a high test-retest reliability. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the TDQ-60 Tr is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing naming abilities in adults and the elderly. The results of this study have significant implications for the assessment of naming ability in Turkish-speaking patients. Our work serves as a crucial connection to address the lack of tools for diagnosing anomia in Turkey.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".