You are not logged in.

Determining appropriate screening tools and cut-points for cognitive impairment in an elderly Chinese sample

Mellor, David, Lewis, Matthew, McCabe, Marita, Byrne, Linda, Wang, Tao, Wang, Jinghua, Zhu, Minjue, Cheng, Yan, Yang, Cece, Dong, Shuhui and Xiao, Shifu 2016, Determining appropriate screening tools and cut-points for cognitive impairment in an elderly Chinese sample, Psychological assessment, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 1345-1353, doi: 10.1037/pas0000271.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Determining appropriate screening tools and cut-points for cognitive impairment in an elderly Chinese sample
Author(s) Mellor, DavidORCID iD for Mellor, David orcid.org/0000-0001-5007-5906
Lewis, Matthew
McCabe, Marita
Byrne, LindaORCID iD for Byrne, Linda orcid.org/0000-0001-9055-0046
Wang, Tao
Wang, Jinghua
Zhu, Minjue
Cheng, Yan
Yang, Cece
Dong, Shuhui
Xiao, Shifu
Journal name Psychological assessment
Volume number 28
Issue number 11
Start page 1345
End page 1353
Total pages 9
Publisher American Psychological Association
Place of publication Washington, D.C.
Publication date 2016-11
ISSN 1040-3590
1939-134X
Keyword(s) Social Sciences
Psychology, Clinical
Psychology
Minimental Status Examination (MMSE)
Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)
China
mild cognitive impairment (MCI)
Alzheimer's disease (AD)
MINI-MENTAL-STATE
ALZHEIMER-DISEASE
DEMENTIA
METAANALYSIS
POPULATION
PREVALENCE
DIFFERENCE
SCORES
MMSE
MOCA
Summary The establishment of normative data and screening cut-points for cognitive tasks is important to ensure the effective and timely detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). These need to be culturally relevant and account for known factors that impact on cognition such as age, education, and gender. In this study, 1,068 elderly Chinese residents of Shanghai completed a comprehensive series of cognitive tasks as part of a community screening study with 1027 meeting criteria for analysis, age M(SD) = 72.54 (8.40). MCI was detected in 267 individuals, AD in 50, and 710 had normal cognition. Receiver Operator Characteristic curve analysis indicated that the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) best differentiated normal cognition from MCI and AD. We present suggested cut-points to differentiate between normal cognition and MCI and AD for the total sample, and when split according to education levels, age, and gender. Trends suggest that the MoCA was better suited to detecting MCI, and the MMSE was better for detecting AD. For younger and more educated participants, only a slight impairment was necessary to meet screening criteria, while a larger impairment was necessary for older and less educated participants. Both tasks had a high negative predictive values for MCI and AD, and variable positive predictive values. The cut-points presented can be used to inform future work using the MMSE and MoCA to screen for MCI and AD in older Chinese people. (PsycINFO Database Record
Language eng
DOI 10.1037/pas0000271
Field of Research 170199 Psychology not elsewhere classified
1701 Psychology
1503 Business And Management
Socio Economic Objective 920410 Mental Health
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2016, American Psychological Association
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30088605

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: School of Psychology
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 1 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 1 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 43 Abstract Views, 1 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Wed, 09 Nov 2016, 01:26:08 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.