Performance of younger and older adults on a bidirectional naming assessment
Standard bidirectional naming tests can fail fluent adults, so low scores in kids may be the test's fault, not a skill gap.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team gave 24 neurotypical adults a standard bidirectional naming test.
The test checks if you can hear a name and point to the picture, then later see the picture and say the name without extra teaching.
All adults were fluent English speakers with no known disabilities.
What they found
Only one adult passed the test.
The other 23 looked like they lacked the skill, even though they clearly knew the words.
The authors say the test itself may create false negatives.
How this fits with other research
Bigby et al. (2009) saw a similar problem in kids with autism.
They found that lower reading skill, not better self-control, made Stroop scores look good.
Both papers warn: the test setup, not the person, can hide real ability.
Crane et al. (2008) also used single-case naming tasks.
They showed that quick gains vanish once prompts stop.
Together these studies say naming assessments need tighter rules and follow-up checks.
Why it matters
If fluent adults fail, a child who bombs the same test may still have the skill.
Before you write "no bidirectional naming" in a report, run extra trials or swap in new stimuli.
A low score could be the test talking, not the learner.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a second stimulus set and re-test any client who scored zero on bidirectional naming.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In research on variables that influence bidirectional naming, measurement of bidirectional naming often involves exposing children to pairs of verbal and visual stimuli, followed by testing of listener behavior and tacts. We administered a bidirectional naming assessment, modeled after an assessment procedure described in previous studies, to 12 younger adults (18 to 25 years) and 12 older adults (67 years and older). Visual patterns were paired with nonsense words, and listener behavior and tacts were tested after a 2-hr delay. The assessment classified one participant in the younger group and no participants in the older group as meeting criteria for incidental bidirectional naming and only four additional participants (all in the younger group) as meeting criteria for unidirectional naming. Although adults should theoretically be expected to demonstrate advanced bidirectional naming, the assessment procedure failed to capture this repertoire. The results suggest that below-criterion performance in bidirectional naming assessment may in some cases be an artifact of assessment, instead of suggesting a bidirectional naming repertoire has not been acquired. These findings have implications for measuring bidirectional naming and interpreting assessment outcomes.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2025 · doi:10.1002/jeab.70067