This study compared prorated Boston Naming Test (BNT-P; omitting the noose item) and standard administration (BNT-S) scores in physical medicine and rehabilitation patients (N = 480). The sample was 34% female and 91% White with average age and education of 46 (SD = 15) and 14 (SD = 3) years, respectively. BNT-P was calculated by summing correct responses excluding item 48 and estimating the 60-item score with cross multiplication and division. BNT-P and BNT-S scores were compared via concordance correlation (CC) coefficients; reflected and log transformed data were examined with equivalence tests. BNT-P and BNT-S scores showed almost perfect agreement (CC = .99). Transformed scores demonstrated equivalence (±1.1 points). Raw and scaled score differences were 0 in 88% and 96% of cases, respectively. Race and ethnicity accounted for item 48 outcomes while controlling for age and education. Findings support the utility of prorated BNT scores in rehabilitation patients.

本研究比较了物理医学和康复患者（ N = 480）的按比例分配的波士顿命名测试（BNT-P；省略绞索项目）和标准管理（BNT-S）评分。样本为 34% 的女性和 91% 的白人，平均年龄和受教育程度分别为 46（SD = 15）和 14（SD= 3) 年。BNT-P 是通过将不包括第 48 项的正确答案相加并通过交叉乘法和除法估计 60 项分数来计算的。BNT-P 和 BNT-S 评分通过一致性相关 (CC) 系数进行比较；反射和对数转换数据用等价检验进行检查。BNT-P 和 BNT-S 评分显示几乎完全一致 (CC = .99)。转换后的分数表现出等价性（±1.1 分）。在 88% 和 96% 的病例中，原始评分和比例评分差异分别为 0。种族和民族在控制年龄和教育的同时占第 48 项结果。研究结果支持按比例分配的 BNT 评分在康复患者中的效用。