Kevin Duff1, David Shprecher2, Irene Litvan3, Adam Gerstenecker4, Benjamin Mast4. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. Electronic address: kevin.duff@hsc.utah.edu. 2. Department of Neurology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. 3. Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego. 4. Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of demographic variables on scores on the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (mTICS) in a healthy cohort and develop demographically corrected normative data. DESIGN: Observational. SETTING: Primarily academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: 576 healthy older adults. MEASUREMENTS: mTICS. RESULTS: Age and education significantly correlated with mTICS score, and sex differences were also observed on this score. Ethnicity differences were not observed. Using regression equations, age, education, and sex significantly predicted mTICS total score. CONCLUSIONS: By using these corrections, an individual's cognitive status may be more accurately predicted with this telephone screening instrument, although clinical validation is needed.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of demographic variables on scores on the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (mTICS) in a healthy cohort and develop demographically corrected normative data. DESIGN: Observational. SETTING: Primarily academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: 576 healthy older adults. MEASUREMENTS: mTICS. RESULTS: Age and education significantly correlated with mTICS score, and sex differences were also observed on this score. Ethnicity differences were not observed. Using regression equations, age, education, and sex significantly predicted mTICS total score. CONCLUSIONS: By using these corrections, an individual's cognitive status may be more accurately predicted with this telephone screening instrument, although clinical validation is needed.
Authors: Esther van den Berg; Carla Ruis; Geert Jan Biessels; L Jaap Kappelle; Martine J E van Zandvoort Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: Kevin Duff; Mike R Schoenberg; James W Mold; James G Scott; Russell L Adams Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2010-12-10 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: Hochang B Lee; Amanda K Richardson; Betty S Black; Andrew D Shore; Judith D Kasper; Peter V Rabins Journal: Aging Ment Health Date: 2011-10-14 Impact factor: 3.658
Authors: Michal Schnaider Beeri; Perla Werner; Michael Davidson; James Schmidler; Jeremy Silverman Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: David S Knopman; Rosebud O Roberts; Yonas E Geda; V Shane Pankratz; Teresa J H Christianson; Ronald C Petersen; Walter A Rocca Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2009-11-05 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Tamara G Fong; Michael A Fearing; Richard N Jones; Peilin Shi; Edward R Marcantonio; James L Rudolph; Frances M Yang; Dan K Kiely; Sharon K Inouye Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Adam Gerstenecker; Roy Martin; Daniel C Marson; Khurram Bashir; Kristen L Triebel Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Michael K Scullin; Winston E Jones; Richard Phenis; Samantha Beevers; Sabra Rosen; Kara Dinh; Andrew Kiselica; Francis J Keefe; Jared F Benge Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Anne R Carlew; Hudaisa Fatima; Julia R Livingstone; Caitlin Reese; Laura Lacritz; Cody Pendergrass; Kenneth Chase Bailey; Chase Presley; Ben Mokhtari; Colin Munro Cullum Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Marina Bruderer-Hofstetter; Mark A Dubbelman; André Meichtry; Florian Koehn; Thomas Münzer; Roos J Jutten; Philip Scheltens; Sietske A M Sikkes; Karin Niedermann Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 3.186