Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:18:42.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Conversion between Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III and Mini-Mental State Examination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2017

Jordi A. Matías-Guiu*
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, San Carlos Institute for Health Research (IdISSC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Vanesa Pytel
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, San Carlos Institute for Health Research (IdISSC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Ana Cortés-Martínez
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, San Carlos Institute for Health Research (IdISSC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
María Valles-Salgado
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, San Carlos Institute for Health Research (IdISSC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Teresa Rognoni
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, San Carlos Institute for Health Research (IdISSC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Teresa Moreno-Ramos
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, San Carlos Institute for Health Research (IdISSC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Jorge Matías-Guiu
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, San Carlos Institute for Health Research (IdISSC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Jordi A. Matías-Guiu, Department of Neurology, San Carlos Institute for Health Research (IdISSC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, C/ Profesor Martín Lagos s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain. Phone: +34913303511, +34676933312. Email: jordimatiasguiu@hotmail.com, jordi.matias-guiu@salud.madrid.org.
Get access

Abstract

Background:

We aim to provide a conversion between Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III (ACE-III) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores, to predict the MMSE result based on ACE-III, thus avoiding the need for both tests, and improving their comparability.

Methods:

Equipercentile equating method was used to elaborate a conversion table using a group of 400 participants comprising healthy controls and Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. Then, reliability was assessed in a group of 100 healthy controls and patients with AD, 52 with primary progressive aphasia and 22 with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia.

Results:

The conversion table between ACE-III and MMSE denoted a high reliability, with intra-class correlation coefficients of 0.940, 0.922, and 0.902 in the groups of healthy controls and AD, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia, and primary progressive aphasia, respectively.

Conclusion:

Our conversion table between ACE-III and MMSE suggests that MMSE may be estimated based on the ACE-III score, which could be useful for clinical and research purposes.

Type
Original Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albano, A. D. (2016). Equate: an R package for observed-score linking and equating. Journal of Statistical Software, 74, 136.Google Scholar
Bergeron, D. et al. (2017). Multicenter validation of an MMSE-MoCA conversion table. Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 65, 10671072.Google Scholar
Carnero-Pardo, C. (2015). Should the mini-mental state examination be retired? Neurologia, 29, 473481.Google Scholar
Devenney, E. and Hodges, J. R. (2017). The mini-mental state examination: pitfalls and limitations. Practical Neurology, 17, 7980.Google Scholar
Elamin, M., Holloway, G., Bak, T. H. and Pal, S. (2015). The utility of the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination version three in early-onset dementia. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 41, 915.Google Scholar
Gorno-Tempini, M. L. et al. (2011). Classification of primary progressive aphasia and its variants. Neurology, 76, 10061014.Google Scholar
Hsieh, S., Schubert, S., Hoon, C., Mioshi, E. and Hodges, J. R. (2013). Validation of the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 36, 242250.Google Scholar
Lawton, M. et al. (2016). Validation of conversion between mini-mental state examination and montreal cognitive assessment. Movement Disorders, 31, 593596.Google Scholar
Lees, R. A., Hendry, Ba. K., Broomfield, N., Stott, D., Larner, A. J. and Quinn, T. J. (2016). Cognitive assessment in stroke: feasibility and test properties using different approaches to scoring of incomplete items. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. doi: 10.1002/gps.4568.Google Scholar
Livingston, S. A. (2004). Equating Test Scores (Without IRT). Princeton, NJ: ETS.Google Scholar
Mathuranath, P. S., Nestor, P. J., Barrios, G. E., Rakowicz, W. and Hodges, J. R. (2000). A brief cognitive test battery to differentiate Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia. Neurology, 55, 16131620.Google Scholar
Matías-Guiu, J. A. et al. (2015a). Validation of the Spanish version of Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III for diagnosing dementia. Neurología, 30, 545551.Google Scholar
Matías-Guiu, J. A. et al. (2015b). Clinical course of primary progressive aphasia: clinical and FDG-PET patterns. Journal of Neurology, 262, 570577.Google Scholar
Matías-Guiu, J. A. et al. (2016a) Normative data for the Spanish version of the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 41, 243250.Google Scholar
Matías-Guiu, J. A. et al. (2017a). Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III: diagnostic utility for mild cognitive impairment and dementia and correlation with standardized neuropsychological tests. International Psychogeriatrics, 29, 105113.Google Scholar
Matías-Guiu, J. A., Fernández-Bobadilla, R. and Cortés-Martínez, A. (2016b). Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III: a neuropsychological test useful to screen and obtain a cognitive profile. Neurología. doi: 10.1016/j.nrl.2016.06.014.Google Scholar
Matías-Guiu, J. A., Valles-Salgado, M., Rognoni, T., Hamre-Gil, F., Moreno-Ramos, T. and Matías-Guiu, J. (2017b). Comparative diagnostic accuracy of the ACE-III, MIS, MMSE, MoCA, and RUDAS for screening of Alzheimer Disease. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders 43, 237246.Google Scholar
McKhann, G. M. et al. (2011). The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease: recommendations from the national institute on aging-Alzheimer's association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers & Dementia, 7, 263269.Google Scholar
Mioshi, E., Dawson, K., Mitchell, J., Arnold, R. and Hodges, J. R. (2006). The Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination revised (ACE-R): a brief cognitive test battery for dementia screening. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 10781085.Google Scholar
Rascovsky, K. et al. (2011). Sensitivity of revised diagnostic criteria for the behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia. Brain, 134, 24562477.Google Scholar
Roalf, D. R. et al. (2017). Bridging cognitive screening tests in neurologic disorders: a crosswalk between the short Montreal cognitive assessment and mini-mental state examination. Alzheimers & Dementia. doi: 10.1016/j.alz.2017.01.015.Google Scholar
van Steenoven, I. et al. (2014). Conversion between mini-mental state examination, Montreal cognitive assessment, and dementia rating scale-2 scores in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders, 29, 18091815.Google Scholar
Velyudhan, L. et al. (2014). Review of brief cognitive tests for patients with suspected dementia. International Psychogeriatrics, 26, 12471264.Google Scholar
Wang, B. R., Ou, Z., Gu, X. H., Wei, C. S., Xu, J. and Shi, J. Q. (2017). Validation of the Chinese version of Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III for diagnosing dementia. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. doi: 10.1002/gps.4680.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Matías-Guiu et al supplementary material 1

Supplementary Table

Download Matías-Guiu et al supplementary material 1(File)
File 57 KB
Supplementary material: File

Matías-Guiu et al supplementary material 2

Supplementary Table

Download Matías-Guiu et al supplementary material 2(File)
File 99.5 KB