Validation of Four Methods for Converting Scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to Scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination-2.

Dementia and neurocognitive disorders Pub Date : 2021-10-01 Epub Date: 2021-09-27 DOI:10.12779/dnd.2021.20.4.41
Sung Hoon Kang, Moon Ho Park
{"title":"Validation of Four Methods for Converting Scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to Scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination-2.","authors":"Sung Hoon Kang,&nbsp;Moon Ho Park","doi":"10.12779/dnd.2021.20.4.41","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>There are many methods for converting scores from the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to those on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). In this study we aimed to validate 4 methods that convert the full score range (0-30 points) of the MoCA to an equivalent range for the MMSE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We examined the medical records of 506 subjects who completed the MoCA and MMSE-second edition (MMSE-2) on the same day. For the validation index, we calculated mean, median, and root-mean-squared error (RMSE) of the difference between true and equivalent MMSE-2 scores. We also calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), the Bland-Altman plot, and the generalizability coefficient between true and equivalent MMSE-2 scores for reliability. We compared the ICCs according to age, sex, education, MMSE, and cognitive-status subgroups. For accuracy, we evaluated a ±2 point difference between the true and equivalent MMSE-2 scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 4 conversion methods had a mean of -0.79 to -0.05, a median of -1 to 0, and an RMSE of 2.61-2.94 between true and equivalent MMSE-2 scores. All conversion methods had excellent reliability, with an ICC greater than 0.75 between true and equivalent MMSE-2 scores. These results were almost maintained in the subgroup analyses. These conversion methods provided more than 65% accuracy within ±2 points of the true MMSE-2 scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We suggest that these 4 conversion methods are applicable for converting MoCA scores to MMSE-2 scores. They will greatly enhance the usefulness of existing cognitive data in clinical and research settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":72779,"journal":{"name":"Dementia and neurocognitive disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ee/ff/dnd-20-41.PMC8585534.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dementia and neurocognitive disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12779/dnd.2021.20.4.41","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background and purpose: There are many methods for converting scores from the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to those on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). In this study we aimed to validate 4 methods that convert the full score range (0-30 points) of the MoCA to an equivalent range for the MMSE.

Methods: We examined the medical records of 506 subjects who completed the MoCA and MMSE-second edition (MMSE-2) on the same day. For the validation index, we calculated mean, median, and root-mean-squared error (RMSE) of the difference between true and equivalent MMSE-2 scores. We also calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), the Bland-Altman plot, and the generalizability coefficient between true and equivalent MMSE-2 scores for reliability. We compared the ICCs according to age, sex, education, MMSE, and cognitive-status subgroups. For accuracy, we evaluated a ±2 point difference between the true and equivalent MMSE-2 scores.

Results: The 4 conversion methods had a mean of -0.79 to -0.05, a median of -1 to 0, and an RMSE of 2.61-2.94 between true and equivalent MMSE-2 scores. All conversion methods had excellent reliability, with an ICC greater than 0.75 between true and equivalent MMSE-2 scores. These results were almost maintained in the subgroup analyses. These conversion methods provided more than 65% accuracy within ±2 points of the true MMSE-2 scores.

Conclusions: We suggest that these 4 conversion methods are applicable for converting MoCA scores to MMSE-2 scores. They will greatly enhance the usefulness of existing cognitive data in clinical and research settings.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
四种将蒙特利尔认知评估分数转换为简易精神状态考试分数的方法的验证-2。
背景和目的:有许多方法可以将蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)的分数转换为简易精神状态检查(MMSE)的分数。在这项研究中,我们旨在验证4种方法,将MoCA的满分范围(0-30分)转换为MMSE的等效范围。方法:对当日完成MoCA和mmse第二版(MMSE-2)的506例患者的病历进行分析。对于验证指标,我们计算了真实和等效MMSE-2分数之间差异的平均值、中位数和均方根误差(RMSE)。我们还计算了类内相关系数(ICCs), Bland-Altman图,以及真实和等效MMSE-2分数之间的可靠性的可推广系数。我们根据年龄、性别、教育程度、MMSE和认知状态亚组比较ICCs。为了准确性,我们评估了真实和等效MMSE-2分数之间的±2分差。结果:4种转换方法的平均值为-0.79 ~ -0.05,中位数为-1 ~ 0,真实与等效MMSE-2评分之间的RMSE为2.61 ~ 2.94。所有转换方法均具有优异的可靠性,真实和等效MMSE-2分数之间的ICC大于0.75。这些结果在亚组分析中几乎保持不变。这些转换方法在真实MMSE-2分数的±2分范围内提供了65%以上的准确度。结论:我们认为这4种转换方法适用于将MoCA评分转换为MMSE-2评分。它们将大大提高现有认知数据在临床和研究环境中的有用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Comparison of Item Characteristics and Test Information Between the K-MMSE~2:SV and K-MMSE. Assessing the Impact of Defacing Algorithms on Brain Volumetry Accuracy in MRI Analyses. Discriminative Power of Seoul Cognitive Status Test in Differentiating Subjective Cognitive Decline, Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Dementia Based on CERAD-K Standards. Shunt-Responsive Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Patient With Parkinson's Disease-Compatible Findings on Dopamine Transporter Scans. Speech Emotion Recognition in People at High Risk of Dementia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1