4.7 Article

Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status: Creating a crosswalk with the Mini-Mental State Examination

期刊

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
卷 5, 期 6, 页码 492-497

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2009.02.007

关键词

Telephone Inventory for Cognitive Status; Mini-Mental State Examination; Cognitive screening measures; Dementia instruments

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [R21AG025193, K24AG00949, K23 AG 031320, T32 AG023480]
  2. Aging Brain Center
  3. Institute for Aging Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Brief cognitive screening measures are valuable tools for both research and clinical applications. The most widely used instrument, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), is limited in that it must be administered face-to-face, cannot be used in participants with visual or motor impairments, and is protected by copyright. Screening instruments such as the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) were developed to provide a valid alternative, with comparable cut-point scores to rate global cognitive function. Methods: The MMSE, TICS-30, and TICS-40 scores from 746 community-dwelling elders who participated in the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study (ADAMS) were analyzed with equipercentile equating, a statistical process of determining comparable scores based on percentile equivalents for different forms of an examination. Results: Scores from the MMSE and TICS-30 and TICS-40 corresponded well, and clinically relevant cut-point scores were determined. For example, an MMSE score of 23 is equivalent to 17 and 20 on the TICS-30 and TICS-40, respectively. Conclusions: These findings indicate that TICS and MMSE scores can be linked directly. Clinically relevant and important MMSE cut points and the respective ADAMS TICS-30 and TICS-40 cut-point scores are included, to identify the degree of cognitive impairment among respondents with any type of cognitive disorder. These results will help in the widespread application of TICS in both research and clinical practice. (C) 2009 The Alzheimer's Association. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据