4.5 Article

The TE4D-Cog: a new test for detecting early dementia in English-speaking populations

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
Volume 20, Issue 12, Pages 1172-1179

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gps.1412

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; early dementia; screening test; sensitivity; specificity; valid; reliable; TE4D-Cog; mini mental state examination

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The screening test usually used to detect dementia (Mini Mental State Examination, MMSE) is limited by a ceiling effect and high false positive rates, as are other similar instruments. There is therefore a need for a more sensitive and specific screening tool to aid early detection and diagnosis of dementia. Objective The hypothesis of the study was that the TE4D-Cog would be more sensitive and specific than the MMSE in detecting mild cognitive impairment in patients with AD. Method The TE4D (Test for the Early Detection of Dementia from Depression) was adapted from its original German version for English-speaking populations. This new scale (the TE4D-Cog) was then administered together with the MMSE and the cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog) to 178 people with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and 25 cognitively intact comparators. The sensitivity and specificity in detecting dementia of the TE4D-Cog and the MMSE were compared in those with mild dementia and those without dementia. Results The TE4D-cog had high sensitivity with an acceptable specificity and low false positive rate. It also had good concurrent validity, high inter-rater reliability, good internal consistency and strong predictive validity. Conclusions The TE4D-Cog is easy to administer, short and acceptable. Results are independent of age, gender and level of education. The TE4D-Cog may therefore be a useful alternative to the MMSE as a dementia screening instrument. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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