The Boston naming test is a valid psychometric marker of English proficiency in bilingual Cubans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the utility of the short form of the Boston Naming Test (BNT-15) as an index of English proficiency and its relationship with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). METHOD: The BNT-15 was administered to a sample of 51 Cuban university students (native speakers of Spanish) with various levels of English proficiency as part of a battery of neuropsychological tests administered in both Spanish and English. RESULTS: The BNT-15 and CEFR were positively correlated with each other and relative language proficiency. A linear relationship emerged between levels of English proficiency operationalized using BNT-15 scores or CEFR ratings for tests with high verbal mediation. However, English proficiency was unrelated to performance on tests with low verbal mediation. Item-level responses on the BNT-15 suggest culture- and language-specific influences independent of overall level of English proficiency. CONCLUSIONS: The BNT-15 and CEFR provide valid measures of English proficiency, although both leave a high percentage of variance in test performance unexplained. Large-scale replications are needed to further explore the utility of the BNT-15 as an index of English proficiency.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".