Comparing the Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mini-Mental State Examination When Screening People for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia in Chinese population

Jui Chen Tsai, Chia Wei Chen, Hsin Chu, Hui Ling Yang, Min-Huey Chung, Yuan-Mei Liao, Kuei-Ru Chou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background The study compared the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic value of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in screening for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive design was used, and 142 participants were screened for MCI and mild dementia by using the MoCA and MMSE. The receiver operating characteristic curves and the cutoff scores with the largest area under the curve (AUC) were determined and compared to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic value (positive predictive value [PPV] and negative predictive value [NPV]). Results The optimal MoCA cutoff scores for MCI and dementia were 24 and 20, respectively. According to these scores, the sensitivities were 0.88 and 0.79, the specificities were 0.74 and 0.80, the AUCs were 0.91 and 0.87, the PPVs were 0.93 and 0.74, and the NPVs were 0.74 and 0.87, respectively. The optimal cutoff MMSE scores for MCI and dementia were 27 and 24, respectively. Hence, the sensitivities were 0.88 and 0.84, the specificities were 0.70 and 0.86, the AUCs were 0.88 and 0.89, the PPVs were 0.94 and 0.80, and the NPVs were 0.81 and 0.88, respectively. Conclusion In the Chinese population, the MoCA is more efficient in screening for MCI than for dementia, whereas the MMSE is more efficient in screening for dementia than for MCI. The MoCA and MMSE can be used by clinical staffs for quick and accurate cognitive impairment screening, thus facilitating early and appropriate clinical intervention and treatment. © 2016 Elsevier Inc.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)486-491
JournalArchives of Psychiatric Nursing
Volume30
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Dementia
Sensitivity and Specificity
Population
Area Under Curve
Cognitive Dysfunction
ROC Curve

Cite this

@article{fbb0101485a1479db657ac8d547bce98,
title = "Comparing the Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mini-Mental State Examination When Screening People for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia in Chinese population",
abstract = "Background The study compared the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic value of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in screening for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive design was used, and 142 participants were screened for MCI and mild dementia by using the MoCA and MMSE. The receiver operating characteristic curves and the cutoff scores with the largest area under the curve (AUC) were determined and compared to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic value (positive predictive value [PPV] and negative predictive value [NPV]). Results The optimal MoCA cutoff scores for MCI and dementia were 24 and 20, respectively. According to these scores, the sensitivities were 0.88 and 0.79, the specificities were 0.74 and 0.80, the AUCs were 0.91 and 0.87, the PPVs were 0.93 and 0.74, and the NPVs were 0.74 and 0.87, respectively. The optimal cutoff MMSE scores for MCI and dementia were 27 and 24, respectively. Hence, the sensitivities were 0.88 and 0.84, the specificities were 0.70 and 0.86, the AUCs were 0.88 and 0.89, the PPVs were 0.94 and 0.80, and the NPVs were 0.81 and 0.88, respectively. Conclusion In the Chinese population, the MoCA is more efficient in screening for MCI than for dementia, whereas the MMSE is more efficient in screening for dementia than for MCI. The MoCA and MMSE can be used by clinical staffs for quick and accurate cognitive impairment screening, thus facilitating early and appropriate clinical intervention and treatment. {\circledC} 2016 Elsevier Inc.",
author = "Tsai, {Jui Chen} and Chen, {Chia Wei} and Hsin Chu and Yang, {Hui Ling} and Min-Huey Chung and Yuan-Mei Liao and Kuei-Ru Chou",
note = "doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2016.01.015",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1016/j.apnu.2016.01.015",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "486--491",
journal = "Archives of Psychiatric Nursing",
issn = "0883-9417",
publisher = "Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing the Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mini-Mental State Examination When Screening People for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia in Chinese population

AU - Tsai, Jui Chen

AU - Chen, Chia Wei

AU - Chu, Hsin

AU - Yang, Hui Ling

AU - Chung, Min-Huey

AU - Liao, Yuan-Mei

AU - Chou, Kuei-Ru

N1 - doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2016.01.015

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Background The study compared the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic value of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in screening for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive design was used, and 142 participants were screened for MCI and mild dementia by using the MoCA and MMSE. The receiver operating characteristic curves and the cutoff scores with the largest area under the curve (AUC) were determined and compared to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic value (positive predictive value [PPV] and negative predictive value [NPV]). Results The optimal MoCA cutoff scores for MCI and dementia were 24 and 20, respectively. According to these scores, the sensitivities were 0.88 and 0.79, the specificities were 0.74 and 0.80, the AUCs were 0.91 and 0.87, the PPVs were 0.93 and 0.74, and the NPVs were 0.74 and 0.87, respectively. The optimal cutoff MMSE scores for MCI and dementia were 27 and 24, respectively. Hence, the sensitivities were 0.88 and 0.84, the specificities were 0.70 and 0.86, the AUCs were 0.88 and 0.89, the PPVs were 0.94 and 0.80, and the NPVs were 0.81 and 0.88, respectively. Conclusion In the Chinese population, the MoCA is more efficient in screening for MCI than for dementia, whereas the MMSE is more efficient in screening for dementia than for MCI. The MoCA and MMSE can be used by clinical staffs for quick and accurate cognitive impairment screening, thus facilitating early and appropriate clinical intervention and treatment. © 2016 Elsevier Inc.

AB - Background The study compared the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic value of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in screening for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive design was used, and 142 participants were screened for MCI and mild dementia by using the MoCA and MMSE. The receiver operating characteristic curves and the cutoff scores with the largest area under the curve (AUC) were determined and compared to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic value (positive predictive value [PPV] and negative predictive value [NPV]). Results The optimal MoCA cutoff scores for MCI and dementia were 24 and 20, respectively. According to these scores, the sensitivities were 0.88 and 0.79, the specificities were 0.74 and 0.80, the AUCs were 0.91 and 0.87, the PPVs were 0.93 and 0.74, and the NPVs were 0.74 and 0.87, respectively. The optimal cutoff MMSE scores for MCI and dementia were 27 and 24, respectively. Hence, the sensitivities were 0.88 and 0.84, the specificities were 0.70 and 0.86, the AUCs were 0.88 and 0.89, the PPVs were 0.94 and 0.80, and the NPVs were 0.81 and 0.88, respectively. Conclusion In the Chinese population, the MoCA is more efficient in screening for MCI than for dementia, whereas the MMSE is more efficient in screening for dementia than for MCI. The MoCA and MMSE can be used by clinical staffs for quick and accurate cognitive impairment screening, thus facilitating early and appropriate clinical intervention and treatment. © 2016 Elsevier Inc.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84964380408&origin=resultslist&sort=plf-f&src=s&nlo=&nlr=&nls=&sid=d6c4b65b901e8e4d113257428ae20451&sot=a&sdt=a&sl=36&s=AU-ID%28%22Chung%2c+Min+Huey%22+22953113600%29&relpos=9&citeCnt=7&searchTerm=

UR - https://www.scopus.com/results/citedbyresults.uri?sort=plf-f&cite=2-s2.0-84964380408&src=s&imp=t&sid=3aa720cf1e6e374a5ad178ce7314c958&sot=cite&sdt=a&sl=0&origin=recordpage&editSaveSearch=&txGid=ce782aadaa8524ec6dc242bc9573b35d

U2 - 10.1016/j.apnu.2016.01.015

DO - 10.1016/j.apnu.2016.01.015

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 486

EP - 491

JO - Archives of Psychiatric Nursing

JF - Archives of Psychiatric Nursing

SN - 0883-9417

IS - 4

ER -