4.5 Article

Effects of sociodemographic and health variables on Mini-Mental State Exam scores in older Australians

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages 467-476

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/JGP.0b013e3180547053

Keywords

Mini-Mental State Exam; cutoff scores; population-based study; dementia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This article examines the influence of sociodemographic, biological, and health variables on Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) performance, and assesses how the diversity of the population should be reflected in the MMSE cutoff scores used for screening. Methods: The sociodemographic profiles and MMSE scores of adults aged 65-years and over who participated in the Australian National Mental Health and Well-being Survey were assessed (N = 1,792). Results: The regression models showed that older age, education levels, language spoken at home and in country of birth, socioeconomic status (SES), occupation, sex, and presence of a mood disorder made significant and unique contributions to performance on the MMSE. The individual (univariate) influence of each factor ranged from - 2.61 to 0.09 points, with non-English speaking background (NESB) making the biggest impact. Based on a MMSE score of <= 23 points, 7.7% of the Australian elderly population screened positive for cognitive impairment that may be indicative of dementia. In those scoring <= 23 points, the multivariate model accounted for 24.61% of the variance. Conclusion: Many sociodemographic variables and the presence of a mood disorder influence MMSE performance. Using conventional cutoff scores for screening will lead to a high rate of false positives in older adults ( 75 + years), those with NESB, and those with low SES, and is insensitive for those with high education. The authors suggest simple rules for the correction of the impact of these variables.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available