@article {7529, title = {Development and validation of a brief cognitive assessment tool: the sweet 16.}, journal = {Arch Intern Med}, volume = {171}, year = {2011}, month = {2011 Mar 14}, pages = {432-7}, publisher = {171}, abstract = {

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is often unrecognized among older adults. Meanwhile, current assessment instruments are underused, lack sensitivity, or may be restricted by copyright laws. To address these limitations, we created a new brief cognitive assessment tool: the Sweet 16.

METHODS: The Sweet 16 was developed in a cohort from a large post-acute hospitalization study (n=774) and compared with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Equipercentile equating identified Sweet 16 cut points that correlated with widely used MMSE cut points. Sweet 16 performance characteristics were independently validated in a cohort from the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study (n=709) using clinical consensus diagnosis, the modified Blessed Dementia Rating Scale, and the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE).

RESULTS: The Sweet 16 correlated highly with the MMSE (Spearman r, 0.94; P<.001). Validated against the IQCODE, the area under the curve was 0.84 for the Sweet 16 and 0.81 for the MMSE (P=.06). A Sweet 16 score of less than 14 (approximating an MMSE score <24) demonstrated a sensitivity of 80\% and a specificity of 70\%, whereas an MMSE score of less than 24 showed a sensitivity of 64\% and a specificity of 86\% against the IQCODE. When compared with clinical diagnosis, a Sweet 16 score of less than 14 showed a sensitivity of 99\% and a specificity of 72\% in contrast to an MMSE score with a sensitivity of 87\% and a specificity of 89\%. For education of 12 years or more, the area under the curve was 0.90 for the Sweet 16 and 0.84 for the MMSE (P=.03).

CONCLUSIONS: The Sweet 16 is simple, quick to administer, and will be available open access. The performance of the Sweet 16 is equivalent or superior to that of the MMSE.

}, keywords = {Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cognition Disorders, Cohort Studies, Dementia, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological tests, Surveys and Questionnaires}, issn = {1538-3679}, doi = {10.1001/archinternmed.2010.423}, author = {Tamara G Fong and Richard N Jones and James L Rudolph and Frances Margaret Yang and Tommet, Douglas and Habtemariam, Daniel and Edward R Marcantonio and Kenneth M. Langa and Sharon K Inouye} } @article {7320, title = {Telephone interview for cognitive status: Creating a crosswalk with the Mini-Mental State Examination.}, journal = {Alzheimers Dement}, volume = {5}, year = {2009}, month = {2009 Nov}, pages = {492-7}, publisher = {5}, abstract = {

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.

}, keywords = {Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer disease, Cognition Disorders, Disability Evaluation, Female, Geriatric Assessment, Health Status, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Mass Screening, Models, Statistical, Neuropsychological tests, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Remote Consultation, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity}, issn = {1552-5279}, doi = {10.1016/j.jalz.2009.02.007}, author = {Tamara G Fong and Michael A Fearing and Richard N Jones and Peilin Shi and Edward R Marcantonio and James L Rudolph and Frances Margaret Yang and Dan K Kiely and Sharon K Inouye} }