Mark A. Dubbelman, Marleen van de Beek, Aniek M. van Gils, Anna E. Leeuwis, Annelies E. van der Vlies, Yolande A.L. Pijnenburg, Rudolf Ponds, Sietske A.M. Sikkes, Wiesje M. van der Flier
{"title":"阿姆斯特丹痴呆症队列中的小型精神状态检查和蒙特利尔认知评估的比较与联系","authors":"Mark A. Dubbelman, Marleen van de Beek, Aniek M. van Gils, Anna E. Leeuwis, Annelies E. van der Vlies, Yolande A.L. Pijnenburg, Rudolf Ponds, Sietske A.M. Sikkes, Wiesje M. van der Flier","doi":"10.1017/s1355617724000341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span>Objectives:</span><p>We aimed to compare and link the total scores of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), two common global cognitive screeners.</p><span>Methods:</span><p>2,325 memory clinic patients (63.2 ± 8.6 years; 43% female) with a variety of diagnoses, including subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia due to various etiologies completed the MMSE and MoCA concurrently. We described both screeners, including at the item level. Then, using linear regressions, we investigated how age, sex, education, and diagnosis affected total scores on both instruments. Next, in linear mixed models, we treated the two screeners as repeated measures and analyzed the influence of these characteristics on the relationship between the instruments’ total scores. Finally, we linked total scores using equipercentile equating, accounting for relevant patient characteristics.</p><span>Results:</span><p>MMSE scores (mean ± standard deviation: 25.0 ± 4.6) were higher than MoCA scores (21.2 ± 5.4), and MMSE items generally showed less variation than MoCA items. Both instruments’ scores were individually influenced by age, sex, education, and diagnosis. The relationship between the screeners was moderated by age (estimate = −0.01, 95% confidence interval = [−0.03, −0.00]), education (0.14 [0.10, 0.18]), and diagnosis. These were accounted for when producing crosswalk tables based on equipercentile equating.</p><span>Conclusions:</span><p>Accounting for the influence of patient characteristics, we created crosswalk tables to convert MMSE scores to MoCA scores, and vice versa. These tables may facilitate collaboration between clinicians and researchers and could allow larger, pooled analyses of global cognitive functioning in older adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":49995,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing and linking the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment in the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort\",\"authors\":\"Mark A. Dubbelman, Marleen van de Beek, Aniek M. van Gils, Anna E. Leeuwis, Annelies E. van der Vlies, Yolande A.L. Pijnenburg, Rudolf Ponds, Sietske A.M. Sikkes, Wiesje M. van der Flier\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1355617724000341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span>Objectives:</span><p>We aimed to compare and link the total scores of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), two common global cognitive screeners.</p><span>Methods:</span><p>2,325 memory clinic patients (63.2 ± 8.6 years; 43% female) with a variety of diagnoses, including subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia due to various etiologies completed the MMSE and MoCA concurrently. We described both screeners, including at the item level. Then, using linear regressions, we investigated how age, sex, education, and diagnosis affected total scores on both instruments. Next, in linear mixed models, we treated the two screeners as repeated measures and analyzed the influence of these characteristics on the relationship between the instruments’ total scores. Finally, we linked total scores using equipercentile equating, accounting for relevant patient characteristics.</p><span>Results:</span><p>MMSE scores (mean ± standard deviation: 25.0 ± 4.6) were higher than MoCA scores (21.2 ± 5.4), and MMSE items generally showed less variation than MoCA items. Both instruments’ scores were individually influenced by age, sex, education, and diagnosis. The relationship between the screeners was moderated by age (estimate = −0.01, 95% confidence interval = [−0.03, −0.00]), education (0.14 [0.10, 0.18]), and diagnosis. These were accounted for when producing crosswalk tables based on equipercentile equating.</p><span>Conclusions:</span><p>Accounting for the influence of patient characteristics, we created crosswalk tables to convert MMSE scores to MoCA scores, and vice versa. These tables may facilitate collaboration between clinicians and researchers and could allow larger, pooled analyses of global cognitive functioning in older adults.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49995,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617724000341\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617724000341","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing and linking the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment in the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort
Objectives:
We aimed to compare and link the total scores of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), two common global cognitive screeners.
Methods:
2,325 memory clinic patients (63.2 ± 8.6 years; 43% female) with a variety of diagnoses, including subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia due to various etiologies completed the MMSE and MoCA concurrently. We described both screeners, including at the item level. Then, using linear regressions, we investigated how age, sex, education, and diagnosis affected total scores on both instruments. Next, in linear mixed models, we treated the two screeners as repeated measures and analyzed the influence of these characteristics on the relationship between the instruments’ total scores. Finally, we linked total scores using equipercentile equating, accounting for relevant patient characteristics.
Results:
MMSE scores (mean ± standard deviation: 25.0 ± 4.6) were higher than MoCA scores (21.2 ± 5.4), and MMSE items generally showed less variation than MoCA items. Both instruments’ scores were individually influenced by age, sex, education, and diagnosis. The relationship between the screeners was moderated by age (estimate = −0.01, 95% confidence interval = [−0.03, −0.00]), education (0.14 [0.10, 0.18]), and diagnosis. These were accounted for when producing crosswalk tables based on equipercentile equating.
Conclusions:
Accounting for the influence of patient characteristics, we created crosswalk tables to convert MMSE scores to MoCA scores, and vice versa. These tables may facilitate collaboration between clinicians and researchers and could allow larger, pooled analyses of global cognitive functioning in older adults.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society is the official journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, an organization of over 4,500 international members from a variety of disciplines. The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society welcomes original, creative, high quality research papers covering all areas of neuropsychology. The focus of articles may be primarily experimental, applied, or clinical. Contributions will broadly reflect the interest of all areas of neuropsychology, including but not limited to: development of cognitive processes, brain-behavior relationships, adult and pediatric neuropsychology, neurobehavioral syndromes (such as aphasia or apraxia), and the interfaces of neuropsychology with related areas such as behavioral neurology, neuropsychiatry, genetics, and cognitive neuroscience. Papers that utilize behavioral, neuroimaging, and electrophysiological measures are appropriate.
To assure maximum flexibility and to promote diverse mechanisms of scholarly communication, the following formats are available in addition to a Regular Research Article: Brief Communication is a shorter research article; Rapid Communication is intended for "fast breaking" new work that does not yet justify a full length article and is placed on a fast review track; Case Report is a theoretically important and unique case study; Critical Review and Short Review are thoughtful considerations of topics of importance to neuropsychology and include meta-analyses; Dialogue provides a forum for publishing two distinct positions on controversial issues in a point-counterpoint format; Special Issue and Special Section consist of several articles linked thematically; Letter to the Editor responds to recent articles published in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society; and Book Review, which is considered but is no longer solicited.