意大利人口样本中认知状态电话访谈(TICS)、MMSE和MoCA之间的趋同和等同规范

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Edoardo Nicolò Aiello, Beatrice Curti, Giulia De Luca, Sara Casartelli, Lorenzo Esposti, Chiara Curatoli, Alice Zanin, Elisa Camporeale, Martina Andrea Sirtori, Federico Verde, Vincenzo Silani, Nicola Ticozzi, Nadia Bolognini, Barbara Poletti
{"title":"意大利人口样本中认知状态电话访谈(TICS)、MMSE和MoCA之间的趋同和等同规范","authors":"Edoardo Nicolò Aiello,&nbsp;Beatrice Curti,&nbsp;Giulia De Luca,&nbsp;Sara Casartelli,&nbsp;Lorenzo Esposti,&nbsp;Chiara Curatoli,&nbsp;Alice Zanin,&nbsp;Elisa Camporeale,&nbsp;Martina Andrea Sirtori,&nbsp;Federico Verde,&nbsp;Vincenzo Silani,&nbsp;Nicola Ticozzi,&nbsp;Nadia Bolognini,&nbsp;Barbara Poletti","doi":"10.1007/s40520-025-03026-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>This study aimed at testing the convergence and deriving equating norms between the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in an Italian population sample.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>Four-hundred and eighty two healthy Italian native-speaker (300 females; age: 57.8 ± 15.5, <i>range</i> = 20–94; education: 13.1 ± 3.8, <i>range</i> = 5–25) underwent the TICS (<i>range</i> = 1–41), MMSE and MoCA. An additional <i>Delayed Recall</i> of the 10-word list was administered as the last task of the TICS to compute a further total (TICS<sub>&amp;</sub>DR; <i>range</i> = 1–51). Convergence between the TICS/TICS<sub>&amp;</sub>DR and in-person screeners was tested <i>via</i> Bonferroni-corrected Spearman’s coefficients, whilst equating norms were derived <i>via</i> a Log-linear Smoothing Equipercentile Equating (LSEE) approach. A two one-sided test (TOST) procedure was run to test the equivalence between empirical and LSEE-derived scores.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>TICS scores converged with both MMSE (<i>r</i><sub><i>s</i></sub>=0.34; <i>p</i> &lt;.001) and MoCA scores (<i>r</i><sub><i>s</i></sub>=0.42; <i>p</i> &lt;.001)– the same being true for the TICS<sub>&amp;</sub>DR (MMSE: <i>r</i><sub><i>s</i></sub>=0.36; <i>p</i> &lt;.001; MoCA: <i>r</i><sub><i>s</i></sub>=0.42; <i>p</i> &lt;.001). Cross-walks were estimated to derive TICS/TICS<sub>&amp;</sub>DR scores from the MMSE/MoCA, and vice-versa. The algorithm could not compute the conversions for TICS, MMSE and MoCA scores &lt; 22, &lt;21 and &lt; 14, respectively. TOST procedures revealed that all comparisons yielded equivalence except for those aimed at deriving TICS from MMSE scores and TICS<sub>&amp;</sub>DR from both the MMSE and the MoCA.</p><h3>Discussion</h3><p>The Italian TICS validly captures examinees’ cognitive efficiency as measured by MMSE or MoCA; derived cross-walks between the TICS and MMSE/MoCA allows for a flexible use of in-person and telephone-based screeners.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7720,"journal":{"name":"Aging Clinical and Experimental Research","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40520-025-03026-3.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Convergence and equating norms between the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS), the MMSE and the MoCA in an Italian population sample\",\"authors\":\"Edoardo Nicolò Aiello,&nbsp;Beatrice Curti,&nbsp;Giulia De Luca,&nbsp;Sara Casartelli,&nbsp;Lorenzo Esposti,&nbsp;Chiara Curatoli,&nbsp;Alice Zanin,&nbsp;Elisa Camporeale,&nbsp;Martina Andrea Sirtori,&nbsp;Federico Verde,&nbsp;Vincenzo Silani,&nbsp;Nicola Ticozzi,&nbsp;Nadia Bolognini,&nbsp;Barbara Poletti\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40520-025-03026-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>This study aimed at testing the convergence and deriving equating norms between the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in an Italian population sample.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>Four-hundred and eighty two healthy Italian native-speaker (300 females; age: 57.8 ± 15.5, <i>range</i> = 20–94; education: 13.1 ± 3.8, <i>range</i> = 5–25) underwent the TICS (<i>range</i> = 1–41), MMSE and MoCA. An additional <i>Delayed Recall</i> of the 10-word list was administered as the last task of the TICS to compute a further total (TICS<sub>&amp;</sub>DR; <i>range</i> = 1–51). Convergence between the TICS/TICS<sub>&amp;</sub>DR and in-person screeners was tested <i>via</i> Bonferroni-corrected Spearman’s coefficients, whilst equating norms were derived <i>via</i> a Log-linear Smoothing Equipercentile Equating (LSEE) approach. A two one-sided test (TOST) procedure was run to test the equivalence between empirical and LSEE-derived scores.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>TICS scores converged with both MMSE (<i>r</i><sub><i>s</i></sub>=0.34; <i>p</i> &lt;.001) and MoCA scores (<i>r</i><sub><i>s</i></sub>=0.42; <i>p</i> &lt;.001)– the same being true for the TICS<sub>&amp;</sub>DR (MMSE: <i>r</i><sub><i>s</i></sub>=0.36; <i>p</i> &lt;.001; MoCA: <i>r</i><sub><i>s</i></sub>=0.42; <i>p</i> &lt;.001). Cross-walks were estimated to derive TICS/TICS<sub>&amp;</sub>DR scores from the MMSE/MoCA, and vice-versa. The algorithm could not compute the conversions for TICS, MMSE and MoCA scores &lt; 22, &lt;21 and &lt; 14, respectively. TOST procedures revealed that all comparisons yielded equivalence except for those aimed at deriving TICS from MMSE scores and TICS<sub>&amp;</sub>DR from both the MMSE and the MoCA.</p><h3>Discussion</h3><p>The Italian TICS validly captures examinees’ cognitive efficiency as measured by MMSE or MoCA; derived cross-walks between the TICS and MMSE/MoCA allows for a flexible use of in-person and telephone-based screeners.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aging Clinical and Experimental Research\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40520-025-03026-3.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aging Clinical and Experimental Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40520-025-03026-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aging Clinical and Experimental Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40520-025-03026-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在测试意大利人口样本中认知状态电话访谈(TICS)与迷你精神状态检查(MMSE)和蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)之间的趋同性并推导相等规范。方法482名健康意大利语母语者(女性300名;年龄:57.8±15.5,范围= 20-94;教育程度:13.1±3.8,范围= 5-25)接受了TICS(范围= 1-41)、MMSE和MoCA。作为TICS的最后一个任务,对10个单词的列表进行额外的延迟召回,以计算进一步的总数(TICS&;范围= 1-51)。通过bonferroni校正的Spearman系数测试了TICS/TICS&;DR和现场筛选器之间的收敛性,同时通过对数线性平滑等位数等效(LSEE)方法推导了等效规范。双单侧检验(TOST)程序运行,以检验经验和lsee衍生的分数之间的等效性。结果tics评分与MMSE均趋同(rs=0.34;p <.001)和MoCA评分(rs=0.42;p <.001) -同样适用于TICS&;DR (MMSE: rs=0.36;p & lt;措施;上海:rs = 0.42;p & lt;措施)。估计人行横道从MMSE/MoCA中获得TICS/TICS&;DR分数,反之亦然。该算法无法计算TICS、MMSE和MoCA得分分别为<; 22、<;21和<; 14的转换。TOST程序显示,除了那些旨在从MMSE分数中获得TICS和从MMSE和MoCA中同时获得TICS&;DR的比较外,所有比较都产生了等效性。讨论意大利语的tic有效地捕捉了由MMSE或MoCA测量的考生的认知效率;在TICS和MMSE/MoCA之间衍生的交叉通道允许灵活地使用面对面和基于电话的筛选器。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Convergence and equating norms between the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS), the MMSE and the MoCA in an Italian population sample

Background

This study aimed at testing the convergence and deriving equating norms between the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in an Italian population sample.

Methods

Four-hundred and eighty two healthy Italian native-speaker (300 females; age: 57.8 ± 15.5, range = 20–94; education: 13.1 ± 3.8, range = 5–25) underwent the TICS (range = 1–41), MMSE and MoCA. An additional Delayed Recall of the 10-word list was administered as the last task of the TICS to compute a further total (TICS&DR; range = 1–51). Convergence between the TICS/TICS&DR and in-person screeners was tested via Bonferroni-corrected Spearman’s coefficients, whilst equating norms were derived via a Log-linear Smoothing Equipercentile Equating (LSEE) approach. A two one-sided test (TOST) procedure was run to test the equivalence between empirical and LSEE-derived scores.

Results

TICS scores converged with both MMSE (rs=0.34; p <.001) and MoCA scores (rs=0.42; p <.001)– the same being true for the TICS&DR (MMSE: rs=0.36; p <.001; MoCA: rs=0.42; p <.001). Cross-walks were estimated to derive TICS/TICS&DR scores from the MMSE/MoCA, and vice-versa. The algorithm could not compute the conversions for TICS, MMSE and MoCA scores < 22, <21 and < 14, respectively. TOST procedures revealed that all comparisons yielded equivalence except for those aimed at deriving TICS from MMSE scores and TICS&DR from both the MMSE and the MoCA.

Discussion

The Italian TICS validly captures examinees’ cognitive efficiency as measured by MMSE or MoCA; derived cross-walks between the TICS and MMSE/MoCA allows for a flexible use of in-person and telephone-based screeners.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
5.00%
发文量
283
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Aging clinical and experimental research offers a multidisciplinary forum on the progressing field of gerontology and geriatrics. The areas covered by the journal include: biogerontology, neurosciences, epidemiology, clinical gerontology and geriatric assessment, social, economical and behavioral gerontology. “Aging clinical and experimental research” appears bimonthly and publishes review articles, original papers and case reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信