We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This study aimed to adapt the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-III (ACE-III) and Mini-Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (M-ACE) into Greek and then to examine the convergent validity against their predecessors Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in a Greek population. Moreover, a primary aim was to appraise the utility of each screen by conducting a comparison of the psychometric properties of ACE-III, M-ACE, ACE-R, MMSE, and the Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioural Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Screen (ECAS) in detecting Alzheimer’s disease (AD).
Methods:
Forty patients with AD were recruited and matched with 38 controls. Bayesian Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted to examine the convergent validity. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was implemented to appraise the sensitivity and specificity of the tests in detecting AD.
Results:
The ACE-III, M-ACE, and the ECAS scores robustly correlated with ACE-R and MMSE. The ACE-III and the ECAS-ALS Non-Specific score were the most sensitive and specific tools in detecting AD, closely followed by ECAS Total score and M-ACE. Only ECAS Total score correlated with the duration of disease. The ECAS scores were more resilient to ceiling effects than the other screens. M-ACE produced fewer ceiling effects than MMSE.
Conclusion:
The Greek ACE-III and M-ACE were successfully adapted and showed good convergent validity against their predecessors. They showed very good psychometric properties in detecting AD and may be considered in hectic clinical settings. ECAS Total score and ECAS-ALS Non-Specific showed comparable psychometric properties in the detection of AD and may be considered in polypathological clinics where motor impairments are common.
With the ubiquitous Mini-Mental State Exam now under copyright, attention is turning to alternative cognitive screening tests. The aim of the present study was to investigate three common cognitive screening tools: the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS), and the recently revised Addenbrooke's Cognitive Assessment Version III (ACE-III).
Methods:
The ACE-III, MoCA and RUDAS were administered in random order to a sample of 37 participants with diagnosed mild dementia and 47 comparison participants without dementia. The diagnostic accuracy of the three tests was assessed.
Results:
All the tests showed good overall accuracy as assessed by area under the ROC Curve, 0.89 (95% CI = 0.80–0.95) for the ACE-III, 0.84 (0.75–0.91) for the MoCA, and 0.86 (0.77–0.93) for RUDAS. The three tests were strongly correlated: r(84) = 0.85 (0.78–0.90) between the ACE-III and MoCA, 0.70 (0.57–0.80) between the ACE-III and RUDAS; and 0.65 (0.50–0.76) between the MoCA and RUDAS. The data derived optimal cut-off points for were lower than the published recommendations for the ACE-III (optimal cut-point ≤76, sensitivity = 81.1%, specificity = 85.1%) and the MoCA (≤20, sensitivity = 78.4%, specificity = 83.0%), but similar for the RUDAS (≤22, sensitivity = 78.4%, specificity = 85.1%).
Conclusions:
All three tools discriminated well overall between cases of mild dementia and controls. To inform interpretation of these tests in clinical settings, it would be useful for future research to address more inclusive and potentially age-stratified local norms.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.