Ryan Van Patten1, Karysa Britton2, Geoffrey Tremont1. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior,Warren Alpert Medical School,Brown University,Providence,Rhode Island,USA. 2. Neuropsychology Program,Rhode Island Hospital,Providence,Rhode Island,USA.
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objectives: To show enhanced psychometric properties and clinical utility of the modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS) compared to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). DESIGN: Psychometric and clinical comparison of the 3MS and MMSE. SETTING: Neuropsychological clinic in the northeastern USA. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults referred for cognitive concerns, 87 of whom were cognitively intact (CI) and 206 of whom were diagnosed with MCI. MEASUREMENTS: The MMSE, the 3MS, and comprehensive neuropsychological evaluations. RESULTS: Both instruments were significant predictors of diagnostic outcome (CI or MCI), with comparable odds ratios, but the 3MS explained more variance and showed improved classification accuracies relative to the MMSE. The 3MS also demonstrated greater receiver operating characteristic area under the curve values (0.85, SE = 0.02) compared to the MMSE (0.74, SE = 0.03). Scoring lower than 95/100 on the 3MS suggested MCI, while scoring lower than 28/30 on the MMSE suggested MCI. Additionally, compared to the MMSE, the 3MS shared more variance with neuropsychological composite scores in Language and Memory domains but not in Attention, Visuospatial, and Executive domains. Finally, 65.5% MCI patients were classified as impaired (scoring ≤1 SD below the mean) using 3MS normative data, compared to only 11.7% of patients who were classified as impaired using MMSE normative data. CONCLUSIONS: Broadly speaking, our data strongly favor the widespread substitution of the MMSE with the 3MS in older adults with concerns for cognitive decline.
ABSTRACT Objectives: To show enhanced psychometric properties and clinical utility of the modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS) compared to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). DESIGN: Psychometric and clinical comparison of the 3MS and MMSE. SETTING: Neuropsychological clinic in the northeastern USA. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults referred for cognitive concerns, 87 of whom were cognitively intact (CI) and 206 of whom were diagnosed with MCI. MEASUREMENTS: The MMSE, the 3MS, and comprehensive neuropsychological evaluations. RESULTS: Both instruments were significant predictors of diagnostic outcome (CI or MCI), with comparable odds ratios, but the 3MS explained more variance and showed improved classification accuracies relative to the MMSE. The 3MS also demonstrated greater receiver operating characteristic area under the curve values (0.85, SE = 0.02) compared to the MMSE (0.74, SE = 0.03). Scoring lower than 95/100 on the 3MS suggested MCI, while scoring lower than 28/30 on the MMSE suggested MCI. Additionally, compared to the MMSE, the 3MS shared more variance with neuropsychological composite scores in Language and Memory domains but not in Attention, Visuospatial, and Executive domains. Finally, 65.5% MCI patients were classified as impaired (scoring ≤1 SD below the mean) using 3MS normative data, compared to only 11.7% of patients who were classified as impaired using MMSE normative data. CONCLUSIONS: Broadly speaking, our data strongly favor the widespread substitution of the MMSE with the 3MS in older adults with concerns for cognitive decline.
Authors: Edward H Ip; Shyh-Huei Chen; W Jack Rejeski; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Kathleen M Hayden; Christina E Hugenschmidt; June Pierce; Michael E Miller; Jaime L Speiser; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Denise K Houston; Robert L Newton; Stephen R Rapp; Dalane W Kitzman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 6.591
Authors: Tyler A Kuhn; Emily C Gathright; Mary A Dolansky; John Gunstad; Richard Josephson; Joel W Hughes Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2022 Jan-Feb 01 Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: V Osadchiy; E A Mayer; R Bhatt; J S Labus; L Gao; L A Kilpatrick; C Liu; K Tillisch; B Naliboff; L Chang; A Gupta Journal: Obes Sci Pract Date: 2019-08-30
Authors: Edward H Ip; June Pierce; Shyh-Huei Chen; James Lovato; Timothy M Hughes; Kathleen M Hayden; Christina E Hugenschmidt; Suzanne Craft; Dalane Kitzman; Steve Rapp Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2021-03-31
Authors: Rockson C Pessoa; Gabriela F Oliveira-Pessoa; Brenda K A Souza; Vanderson S Sampaio; André Luiz C B Pinto; Larissa L Barboza; Gabriel S Mouta; Emanuelle Lira Silva; Gisely C Melo; Wuelton M Monteiro; José H Silva-Filho; Marcus V G Lacerda; Djane Clarys Baía-da-Silva Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Christos A Papanastasiou; Christina A Theochari; Nikos Zareifopoulos; Angelos Arfaras-Melainis; George Giannakoulas; Theodoros D Karamitsos; Leonidas Palaiodimos; George Ntaios; Konstantinos I Avgerinos; Dimitrios Kapogiannis; Damianos G Kokkinidis Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 6.473