Objective: To compare the accuracy of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) and the Folstein Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) for diagnosis of dementia in a multicultural cohort of elderly persons.

Methods: A total of 129 community-dwelling persons were selected at random from a database of referrals to an aged-care team. Subjects were stratified according to language background and cognitive diagnosis, and matched for age and gender. The RUDAS and the MMSE were administered to each subject in random order. Within several days, a geriatrician assessed each subject for dementia (DSM-IV criteria) and disease severity (Clinical Dementia Rating Scale). All assessments were carried out independent and blind. The geriatrician also administered the Modified Barthel Index and the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale, and screened all participants for non-cognitive disorders that might affect instrument scores.

Results: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the RUDAS [0.92, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.85–0.96] was similar to the AUC for the MMSE (0.91, 95%CI 0.84–0.95). At the published cut-points (RUDAS < 23/30, MMSE < 25/30), the positive and negative likelihood ratios for the RUDAS were 19.4 and 0.2, and for the MMSE 2.1 and 0.14, respectively. The MMSE, but not the RUDAS, scores were influenced by preferred language (p = 0.015), total years of education (p = 0.016) and gender (p = 0.044).

Conclusions: The RUDAS is at least as accurate as the MMSE, and does not appear to be influenced by language, education or gender. The high positive likelihood ratio for the RUDAS makes it particularly useful for ruling-in disease.

Objective: To assess the accuracy of clock drawing for detecting dementia in a multicultural, non-English-speaking-background population. Design: A prospective cohort study. Setting: A general geriatric medical outpatient clinic in southwest Sydney, Australia. Participants: Ninety-three consecutive new patients to the clinic who had a non-English-speaking-background country of birth (mean age 78.0 years). Measurements: The clock drawing test was conducted at the beginning of each clinic visit by a blinded investigator. Each patient was then assessed by a geriatrician who collected demographic data, administered the Modified Barthel Index, the Geriatric Depression Scale, and the Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination, and categorized each patient as normal or demented, according to DSM-IV criteria. Interpreters were used for participants who spoke a language other than English or who requested them. Each clock drawing was scored according to the 4-point CERAD scale and the previously published methods of Mendez, Shulman, Sunderland, Watson, and Wolf-Klein. Scoring was evaluated for reliability and predictive accuracy, using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the potential interaction between level of education and each of the clock scoring methods. Results: Using ROC curve analysis, there was no significant difference between the clock scoring methods (area under the curve varied from 0.60 to 0.72). The most sensitive was the Mendez scoring method (98%), with a specificity of 16%. Specificity above 50% was found only for the Wolf-Klein method, with an intermediate sensitivity of 78%. Conclusions: There were no significant differences in the clock scoring methods used to detect dementia. Performance of the clock drawing test was modest at best with low levels of specificity across all methods. Scored according to these methods, clock drawing was not a useful predictor of dementia in our multicultural population.