Abstract
An integrative literature review was performed to identify the challenges in current cognitive screening. The aim of the review was to serve as an evaluative resource to guide clinicians in the selection of the best available cognitive screening measures for early assessment of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in people with chronic diseases. The review classified the available cognitive screening measures according to purpose, time to administer, and cognitive domains assessed as: 1) simple/ brief cognitive screening measures, 2) disease specific screening measures, 3) domain specific screening measures, 4) self-administered screening measures, and 5) technology-based screening measures. There is no single optimal cognitive measure for all patient populations and settings. Although disease specific cognitive screening measures are optimal, there is a lack of validated screening measures for many chronic diseases. Technology-based screening measure is a promising avenue for increasing the accessibility of cognitive screening. Future work should focus on translating available screening measures to mobile technology format to enhance the utility in busy primary care settings. Early cognitive screening in persons with chronic disease should enhance appropriate referrals for detailed neurocognitive examination and cognitive interventions to preserve and or minimize cognitive decline.
Keywords: cognitive impairment, cognitive screening, chronic diseases, measures, technology
Introduction
The United States Census Bureau predicts that the population of adults older than 65 years of age will double and the population older than 85 years of age will triple by 2060. 1 The prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is also increasing at an alarming rate. By 2050, the number of people with AD aged 65 and older may nearly triple, from 5 million to as many as 16 million. 2 The annual rate of conversion to dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) ranged from 6% to 25% with an average of 10% per year, which is much higher than the dementia incidence rate of 1% to 2% seen in the general population. 3,4 Although MCI is not an inevitable consequence of aging, age is a major risk factor and the risk is greater in people with chronic diseases with profound consequences. 5 The longitudinal Einstein Aging Study reported an overall prevalence of dementia at 4.9%, with amnestic MCI at 11.6% and nonamnestic MCI at 9.9% among community-dwelling older adults. 6 Alarmingly, the prevalence of MCI among older adults with chronic comorbid conditions is reported to be much higher; 28% in persons with heart failure, 26% in persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 23% in individuals with cancer, and 14% in persons with diabetes. 7 Given the increased prevalence of MCI among persons with chronic diseases, in this article, we have focused on identifying the etiological heterogeneity for MCI in chronic diseases, challenges in current cognitive neuropsychological evaluation, general review of available cognitive screening measures, and emphasis on utilizing technology-based screening for early assessment.
Mild cognitive impairment is a clinical syndrome that commonly arises as a result of neurodegenerative pathology, and in chronic diseases MCI indicates early cognitive decline beyond the normal range according to respective age and level of education. 8 It is believed that by the time AD is diagnosed, sufficient neuronal injury has occurred to the extent that reversal of the disease is unlikely. 9 Mild cognitive impairment in chronic diseases may result from hypoperfusion or reduced cerebral blood flow, 10 neuronal cell death, 11 focal brain abnormalities ranging from multiple cortical or subcortical infarcts to small vessel disease with white matter lesions and lacunar infarcts, 12,13 cortical atrophy, 14 and gray matter reductions, 15 suggesting an etiological heterogeneity.
Despite recent advances in the identification of MCI-related biomarkers, neuropsychological assessment remains a critical component of evaluation to ensure that cognitive function correlates with biomarker abnormalities to assist in detecting and tracking progression of MCI to early AD. 16 In addition, the long-term progression from MCI to dementia or AD (ie, 3 years) may be predicted by the presence of abnormal levels of brain amyloid neurodegeneration seen by magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography scan. 16
Why Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Chronic Diseases?
Persons with chronic diseases such as heart failure, stroke, COPD, HIV, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson’s disease have higher incidence of MCI that affects daily self-care practices. Persons with chronic diseases are required to detect changes in their physical condition that require them to take action and implement a treatment strategy as prescribed by their physician. 17,18 Changes in memory, judgment, and the inability to complete usual activities can result in poor disease management, impact medication adherence, and ultimately have a negative effect on quality of life. 19 Poor performance on cognitive screening tests suggests the presence of cognitive deficits and provides a rationale for comprehensive follow-up of neurocognitive assessment. 20
The rationale for early cognitive screening in persons with chronic diseases is to make referrals appropriately for detailed neurocognitive examination and cognitive interventions to preserve and or minimize memory decline. 17,18 Although over 50 cognitive screening instruments are available, evidence remains unclear on an ideal cognitive screening tool for use in persons with chronic diseases. Most research studies have used 4 to 16 neurocognitive batteries to determine incidence and risk of cognitive impairment and/or to describe common cognitive domains affected in various chronic diseases. 21,22 A plethora of studies among varied populations have documented that the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE), the commonly used screening instrument, is not sensitive to identify subtle cognitive changes seen in MCI related to chronic diseases. 23 In persons with memory complaints seen in primary care, cognitive screening with MMSE did not identify those who require further examination for dementia, thus defeating the intended purpose of early referral. 24 Despite clear limitations, the MMSE has proved resilient in the clinical arena for more than 30 years.
The common elements that are most predictive of progression of MCI are related to poor performance in neuropsychological testing at baseline and the number of different cognitive domains that are impaired. 25 Current challenges in the neuropsychological evaluation of MCI include test selection, the availability of normative databases, the effect of different base rates of MCI and AD in different settings, establishing cutoff points for cognitive impairment, and developing measures more sensitive to specific chronic diseases, while having sufficient specificity to distinguish between etiologically different chronic conditions. 25 In addition, cognitive complaints experienced by older adults are overtly masked by the presence of chronic diseases. 26 Because, MCI associated with chronic disease is subtle and is often not identified by clinicians until the person displays an inability to carry out everyday activities that are often reported by family members and/or caregivers. 27 Such subtle cognitive impairment challenges the persons’ ability to learn and remember self-care management for chronic disease conditions such as heart failure, 28 diabetes, 29 COPD, 30 hypertension, 31 and multiple sclerosis. 32 Evidence also indicates that MCI associated with chronic diseases is associated with poor medication adherence, 33,34 poor quality of life, 35 –37 and increased mortality rate. 38,39 A prospective study of patients with heart failure (N = 577) reported an association with poor self-care adherence and memory impairment. 28 Evidence also indicates increased readmissions rates on people who have MCI associated with chronic diseases such as heart failure and thus the associated cost. 28
Current Standard of Cognitive Screening in Persons With Chronic Diseases
The clinical expert consensus guidelines recently recommended early identification of MCI in order to optimize medical management, improve self-care for chronic diseases, offer better understanding of symptoms associated with chronic disease conditions, maximize decision-making autonomy, and planning for the future. 40 A report from the Einstein aging study showed that 50% to 66% of persons with chronic diseases seen in primary care offices were found to have dementia, yet no such diagnosis was documented in the medical record. 6
The gold standard for assessment of cognitive abilities necessitates systematic and detailed evaluation of a broad range of cognitive processes using multiple neuropsychological batteries. 41 Such detailed examination is not always feasible for use by clinicians in busy outpatient clinic settings due to cost and time. 20,42 Although multiple cognitive screening instruments are available, it is unlikely that a “one size fits all” approach is ideal for cognitive screening due to inconsistencies in the selection and use of screening measures as well as a lack of robust evidence to support the many screening measures available for use in clinical practice. 43
Therefore, the aim of this integrative literature review was to examine evidence on available cognitive screening measures to serve as an evaluative resource to guide clinicians in the selection of the best available cognitive screening measures and provide rationale for the use of novel technology-based cognitive screening that would be both feasible and valid for early cognitive screening among persons with chronic diseases.
Data Source and Results
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews followed by PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychINFO databases were searched using the subject terms “cognition disorders,” “cognitive impairment,” “cognitive dysfunction,” “memory,” “attention,” “screening,” “screening tool,” and combined them with names of multiple chronic diseases. The searches were then combined with AND, limits to the search were placed for humans and English language. The goal was to identify available disease-specific cognitive screening measures as well as general cognitive screening measures used among these chronic disease conditions. Additional articles were identified by hand searches from reference lists and articles included in systematic reviews and from authors who have published in this field. In addition, the initial studies for cognitive screening measures identified were gathered to identify their psychometrics.
The review classified the cognitive screening measures and grouped them based on the time to administer the measure, mode of administration, domains of cognition assessed, and specific purpose of the measures. From the 240 articles identified, the measures were categorized as (1) nonspecific simple/brief cognitive screening measures for a total of 29 measures, 44 –71 (2) disease-specific cognitive screening measures consisting of 14 disease-specific cognitive screening measures for 6 chronic disease conditions (ie, Parkinson’s disease, HIV, stroke, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and schizophrenia), 72 –85 (3) 17 domain-specific cognitive screening measures, 86 –102 (4) 12 self-reported and telephone-based screening measures, 103 –113 and (5) 7 technology-based screening measures utilizing the Internet or mobile apps. 114 –120 These measures are presented in Tables 1 to 5. Note these are not all exhaustive lists.
Table 1.
Name of the Measure | Administration Time | Domains Assessed |
---|---|---|
44 Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT) | 10-12 minutes | Orientation and memory |
45 Boston Naming Test (BNT) | Less than 5 minutes for short form, 10 minutes for full version | Memory, recall, and name pictures |
46 Brief Visuospatial Memory Test—Revised (BVMT-R) | 10-15 minutes, delay recall after 25 minutes. Total 40 minutes | Visuospatial Memory Test and delay recall |
47 California Verbal Learning Test, second edition (CVLT-II) | 15-30 minutes | Verbal memory, and recognition, delayed recall and recognition |
48 Clock-Drawing Test (CDT) | 3-10 minutes | Visuospatial |
49 CogStat | 10-15 minutes | Attention, memory, executive function, psychomotor |
50 Cognitive functioning self-assessment scale (CFSS) | 20 minutes | Self-reported cognitive functioning |
51 Community Screening Interview for Dementia (CSID) | 15 minutes | Memory, abstract thinking, and judgment |
52 Controlled Oral Word Association Test | 5 minutes | Verbal fluency and word finding |
53 Delayed Word Recall Test (DWR) | 7-10 minutes | Memory, recall, repeated elaborate encoding of 10 words a filled delay |
54 Digit Span task of Wechsler Memory Scale-III | 8-10 minutes | Memory and attention |
55 Enhanced Cued Recall (ECR) | 15-20 minutes after | Recall memory only 10 word-list recall |
56 Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) | 5-7 minutes | Executive function |
57 General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition | 5 minutes or less 5 minutes for informant interview | Orientation, clock drawing, and word recall |
58 Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT) | 5 minutes | Verbal learning and memory. Three trials of free-recall only |
59 Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) | 20 minutes | Memory (acquisition and retrieval), verbal intelligence, and performance |
60 Mini-Cog | 5 minutes | Memory and visuospatial |
61 Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS) | 5 minutes | Orientation, attention, calculation, and recall |
62 Memory Impairment Screen (MIS) | 5-8 minutes | Memory and delayed recall |
63 Memory Orientation Screening Test (MOST) | 5 minutes | Three-word recall, time orientation, list memory, and clock drawing |
64 Philadelphia Brief Assessment of the Cognition (PBAC) | 20-25 minutes | Working memory, executive function, lexical retrieval/language, and visuospatial |
65 Ray Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) | 10 minutes for memory delay recall tested after 30 minutes | Verbal learning, memory, delay recall |
66 Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire | 5 minutes or less | Orientation and calculation |
67 Six-Item Cognitive Impairment Test (6-CIT) | 6-7 minutes | Three-item recall and 3-item temporal orientation |
68 Spatial Span Forward and Backward task | 10 minutes | Executive function and visuospatial memory |
69 Stroop Color Word Test or the Stroop Effect Test | 5-7 minutes | Executive function |
70 Trail making Test Part B (TMT B) | 5 minutes or less | Executive function and working memory |
71 Wisconsin Card Sorting Tests (WCST) | Short version 10-15 minutes. Full version up to 30 minutes | Executive function visuospatial memory |
Table 2.
Name of the Tool | Disease | Administration Time | Cognitive Domain |
---|---|---|---|
72 Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS) | Schizophrenia | 10-15 minutes | Memory, verbal fluency semantic and alphabetical, attention, speed of processing, executive function, and motor speed |
73 Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Cognitive Function (FACT–Cog) scale | Cancer | 10 minutes | Thinking, concentration, and attention |
74 HIV Dementia Scale (HDS) | HIV | 10-12 minutes | Attention, motor speed, construction, and working memory |
75 International HIV Dementia Scale (IHDS) | HIV | 10-12 minutes | Attention, motor speed, construction, and working memory |
76 Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS) | Multiple sclerosis | 10 minutes | Memory and verbal learning |
77 Brief Repeatable Neuropsychological Battery (BRNB) | Multiple sclerosis | 10-12 minutes | Selective reminding, spatial recall, verbal learning, and memory |
78 Minimal Assessment of Cognitive Function in Multiple Sclerosis (MACFIMS) | Multiple sclerosis | 12-15 minutes | Symbol digit span modalities test, visuospatial memory, and verbal learning |
79 Multiple sclerosis Neuropsychological Screening Questionnaire (MSNQ) | Multiple sclerosis | 8-10 minutes | Attention, memory, speed of processing, cognitive ability, personality, and behavior |
80 Mini-Mental Parkinson (MMP) | Parkinson’s disease | 5-7 minutes | Memory, recall, temporal, and spatial orientation |
81 Parkinson's Disease-Cognitive Rating Scale (PD-CRS) | Parkinson’s disease | 5-7 minutes | Naming, and working memory |
82 Parkinson’s Disease with Dementia Short Screen (PDD-SS) | Parkinson’s disease | 10-20 minutes | Memory and recall |
83 Parkinson’s Neuro-psychometric Dementia Assessment (PANDA) | Parkinson’s disease | 10-12 minutes | Memory, verbal fluency, attention, naming, drawing, and copy |
84 Scales for Outcomes of Parkinson's disease—Cognition (SCOPA-COG) | Parkinson’s disease | 15-20 minutes | Attention, memory, executive functions, visuospatial abilities |
85 Screening Instrument for Neuro-psychological Impairments in Stroke (SINS) | Stroke | 15 minutes | Languages, visuospatial, attention, speed in unaffected arm, neglect, apraxia, and memory |
Table 3.
Name of the Measure | Administration Time | Domains Assessed |
---|---|---|
86 AB Cognitive Screen (ABCS) | 10-12 minutes | Verbal fluency, orientation, recall, and clock drawing |
87 Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination Revised (ACE-R) | 30 minutes | Orientation, attention, memory, verbal fluency, language, and visuospatial ability |
88 Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool (BCAT) | 20 minutes | Orientation, verbal recall, visual recognition, visual recall, attention, abstraction, executive function, language, and visuospatial processing |
89 Cambridge Cognitive Examination (CAMCOG) | 20-30 minutes | Orientation, expressive and comprehensive language, memory (remote, recent, and learning), attention, praxis, calculation, abstraction, and perception |
90 Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI) | 20 minutes | Attention, concentration, orientation, short-term and long-term memory, language abilities, visual construction, list-generating fluency, abstraction, and judgment |
91 Cognitive Assessment Screening Test | 15 minutes | Visual construction, semantic knowledge, verbal fluency, memory, and language |
92 Cognitive Capacity Screening Examination (CCSE) | 10-15 minutes | Verbal memory, orientation, attention, simple and complex mental mathematics, mental speed, and abstraction |
93 DemTect | 3 levels 25 minutes | Word list for memory, delayed recall of word list, number transcoding, semantic word fluency task, and digit span reverse |
94 IQCODE | 10-15 minutes | Memory (acquisition and retrieval), verbal intelligence and performance |
95 Mattis Dementia Rating Scale | 15-20 minutes | Attention, memory, conceptualization, construction, and initiation perseveration |
96 Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) | 10-12 minutes | Orientation, memory, attention, language, recall, visuospatial, and command |
97 Minnesota Cognitive Acuity Screen (MCAS) | 15-20 minutes | Orientation, attention, delayed word recall, comprehension, repetition, naming, computation, judgment, and verbal fluency |
98 Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) | 10 minutes | Orientation, memory, attention, language, recall, visuospatial, command, and abstraction |
99 Neurobehavioral cognitive status examination (NCSE) | 15-40 minutes | Orientation, attention, language, construction, memory, calculations, and reasoning |
100 Quick Cognitive Screening Test (QCST) | 8-15 minutes | Vocabulary, abstract reasoning, similarities, orientation, attention, concentration, constructional praxis, memory immediate recall, and delayed recall spatial neglect |
101 Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale | 6-10 minutes | Memory, praxis, language, judgment, drawing, and body orientation |
102 Seven-minute Neurocognitive screening battery | 7-8 minutes | Enhanced Cued Recall, temporal orientation, verbal fluency, and clock drawing |
Table 4.
Name of the Measure | Administration Time | Domains Assessed |
---|---|---|
103 Patient Reported Outcomes in Cognitive Impairment (PROCOG) | 30 minutes | Executive function, Navigation, social functioning, leisure time, self-esteem, mood, and functional status |
104 Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement information System (PROMIS) Cognitive Concerns and Ability Scale | 30-40 minutes | Perception of one’s cognitive ability with regard to concentration and memory The self-reported version of the scale |
105 Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination (SAGE) | 12-15 minutes | Language, executive, memory, reasoning, visuospatial, and orientation |
106 Test your memory (TYM) | 12-15 minutes | Orientation, copying, memory (antegrade and retrograde), calculations, visuospatial, and naming |
107 Blessed Telephone Information Memory Concentration Test | 6-10 minutes | Memory and concentration |
Telephone screening measures | ||
108 Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone (BTACT) | 20 minutes | Episodic memory, working memory, reasoning, verbal fluency, processing speed, and executive function |
109 Modified TICS (TICS-M) | 12-15 minutes | 13-Item, wordlist, orientation, memory, and language |
110 Structured Telephone Interview for Dementia Assessment (STIDA) | 15-40 minutes | Memory, orientation, judgment and problem solving. Includes subject and informant interview |
111 Telephone Cognitive Assessment Battery (TCAB) | 15 minutes | Attention; verbal learning, memory; executive function; global cognitive functioning; and self-perceived memory |
112 Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status | 15 minutes | Orientation, concentration, short-term memory, mathematical skills, and language |
113 Telephone-Montreal Cognitive Assessment (T-MoCA) | 12-15 minutes | Attention, memory, abstraction, and orientation |
Table 5.
Name of the Measure | Administration Time | Domains Assessed |
---|---|---|
114 CogStat Web version | 10-15 minutes | Attention, memory, executive function, and psychomotor |
115 Dementia Risk Assessment | 30-40 minutes | Memory (Internet based) |
116 MindStreams | 20-30 minutes | Memory, executive function, visual spatial skills, and verbal fluency |
117 Memory Orientation Screening Test (MOST) iPad Version | 5 minutes | Memory and attention |
118 NeuroScreen | Not known | Attention, motor speed, construction, and working memory |
119 Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement information System (PROMIS) Cognitive Concerns and Ability Scale | 30-40 minutes or over | Perception of one’s cognitive ability with regard to concentration and memory The computerized version of the scale |
120 Stroop Smartphone app | Not known | Cognitive flexibility and psychomotor speed. Used mainly in minimal hepatic encephalopathy |
Discussion of Results
Utility of Simple or Brief Cognitive Screening Measures
Although brief, the general practitioner assessment of cognition (GPCOG), 57 Mini-Cog, 60 memory impairment screen, 62 and memory orientation screening test (MOST) 63 are simple yet structured measures that are valid and suitable for assessment of cognitive function in persons with chronic diseases. Each measure has the unique benefits that they are easy to administer by clinicians or nurses, take less than 5 minutes to administer, and have been validated in the primary care or community setting. The GPCOG has patient and informant (family or caregiver) components that can be used alone or together to increase specificity and sensitivity. 57 The Mini-Cog has been validated in population-based studies and in community–dwelling older adults heterogeneous with respect to language, culture, and education. 60 Kansagara and Freeman reviewed 6 brief cognitive screening measures that could serve as possible alternatives to the MMSE for use by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. 121 The review provided evidence that the Mini-Cog has the shortest administration time (2-4 minutes) and has been studied in a large population sample as well as in multiethnic samples compared to other brief cognitive measures. 121 This was supported in a review that assessed the clinical utility of the GPCOG and Mini-Cog in which both were found to be equally high in sensitivity and specificity. 122 Similarly, the MOST offers an accurate assessment of cognition and could be used in the primary care setting. 123 These brief cognitive screening measures may be ideal to screen cases of dementia from clinics or the community as a first step measure but are considered not appropriate for use in a primary care setting to screen for MCI in persons with chronic diseases. 122 Although controversial, the utility of routinely asking about memory problems with patients and family members followed by a brief cognitive assessment method in patients with a positive response offers a platform for early referral and follow-up for a detailed neuropsychological examination (see Table 1).
Disease-Specific Cognitive Screening Measures
Results from this review identified validated disease-specific cognitive screening measures for only 6 chronic disease conditions, namely, Parkinson’s disease (5 measures), 80 –84 multiple sclerosis (4 measures), 76 –79 with 2 measures for use in HIV, 74,75 and 1 measure each for use in stroke, 85 cancer, 73 and schizophrenia, 72 all of which were developed in recent years. The evolution of new disease-specific cognitive screening measures in recent years clearly indicates the need for a detailed synthesis of available evidence for use by clinicians and researchers. Strengthening the evidence by utilizing existing screening measures works to strengthen the validity and reliability of the currently available screening measures rather than the design of new measures. When the MMSE was compared with the disease-specific screening measures, the MMSE could not achieve the required 80% sensitivity at any cutoff score in persons with Parkinson’s disease. 84 This example illustrates that when possible clinicians should use validated disease-specific screening measures for accurate measurement of cognitive domains affected by specific chronic diseases. This warrants further examination of cognitive domain-specific cognitive screening measures compared with disease-specific cognitive measures to further increase their utility and validity for early assessments. Table 2 provides a list of the most commonly used disease-specific cognitive screening measures. This is, to our knowledge, a comprehensive list of the available cognitive screening measures specific for chronic diseases.
Utility of Cognitive Domain-Specific Screening Measures
Although there is no single cognitive screening measure that is considered to be the gold standard, domain-specific cognitive screening measures that assess 5 or more cognitive domains are considered the second best. Most domain-specific cognitive measures take more than 10 minutes to administer. The commonly used tests for screening MCI are the MMSE, 96 Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), 98 Mattis Dementia Rating Scale, 95 Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination Revised (ACE-R), 87 and the Neurobehavioral cognitive status examination. 99 These measures are often used to validate simple/brief screening measures as well as disease-specific cognitive measures. The MoCA has shown better sensitivity than the MMSE, takes a short duration of 10 to 12 minutes for administration, and has a wide application in routine clinical practice. 98 The MMSE lacks sensitivity in identifying subtle cognitive symptoms of MCI associated with chronic diseases such as in Parkinson’s disease, 124 heart failure, 125 and stroke. 126 Similarly, compared to ACE-R, the MMSE demonstrated inferior accuracy. 127 In addition, the MMSE is not available in the public domain anymore and charging a fee for clinical use has become an issue because of the MMSE copyright. Domain-specific cognitive screening measures offer clinicians’ processes to better describe patients’ cognitive symptom profile for further assessment and to make appropriate referrals; therefore, when disease-specific screening measures are not available, providers should consider using domain-specific cognitive screening measures such as the MoCA or ACE-R.
Self-Administered Cognitive Screening
The self-administered screening measures are designed to rapidly screen large numbers of individuals in the community or practice at the same time, they require no setup of a computer, minimal operator time to administer, test a reasonable range of cognitive functions, and are sensitive to mild AD. 128 The test your memory self-administered measure indicated a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 86% in the diagnosis of AD but has not been tested on patients with MCI and in chronic disease condition. 106 Similarly, the Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination (SAGE), a pen and paper examination, encourages patients to complete the self-administered test and take the completed test to your primary care physician for interpretation and management. 105 However, SAGE requires that individuals must be literate and have adequate vision and writing skills to answer the questions, thus it demands active patient participation and provider training to score the measure, which may be challenging. 105 In addition, the Patient Reported Outcomes in Cognitive Impairment (PROCOG) has a self-administered detailed screen, which includes 55 items for a total score of 220. 103 The PROCOG as well as the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement information System Cognitive Concerns and Ability Scale takes more than 30 minutes to complete and can be very exhaustive for patients. 103,104 Often cognitively impaired persons shy away from being tested and may not fill out the self-administered test if they take more than 10 minutes.
More recently, cognitive screening measures have been tested for validity when administered via telephone. 107 –113 Currently, several cognitive training intervention trials have utilized telephone screening to determine eligibility. However, these measures are not widely tested for their utility in the primary care setting.
Utilizing Technology for Screening, the Future of Cognitive Screening
In the last 3 decades, many validated cognitive assessment measures have been adapted into an alternative and attractive strategy to in-person cognitive assessments by utilizing Web version screening measures that can be self-administered such as the CogStat. 115 The validated NeuroScreen 119 was compared with the Samsung Galaxy Note® smartphone assessing the same cognitive domains that showed good correlation (r = .61, P < .01) with high levels of acceptability by patients and potential provider–users. 129 In addition, a Stroop smartphone application called EncephalApp-Stroop was developed for screening cognitive dysfunction in patients with cirrhosis. 118 Cognitive processing speed in the elderly patients utilizing the smartphone application Color-Shape Test was significantly correlated with global cognition (MMSE: r = .515, P < .0001). 129
Online screening is becoming more popular among community-dwelling adults. Recently, community-dwelling older adults (≥60 years) with subjective memory complaints (n = 30) and no subjective memory complaints (n = 30) participated in an online screening program containing the Cognitive Symptom Checklist and the informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly shorten version. 130 All 100% of participants completed the online assessment without assistance, including 1 woman who had no previous experience in using computers indicating the feasibility of technology-based screening. 130 Recently, the paper version of the MOST was compared with a computerized (iPad app) version among 98 older adults and demonstrated an intertest correlation of .92 (P < .001) with no significant difference between versions and presentation order. 117
Discussion for Clinical Practice
Recognizing that there is no single optimal screening measure, clinicians may often be left in limbo to select the appropriate screening measure and the best mode for administration. Our review indicates the utility of disease-specific cognitive screening measures as first choice where available and/or an alternative domain-specific sensitive measure such as the MoCA or structured brief screening measures including GPCOG or Mini-Cog. The GPCOG is recommended as the next best, since it had both a patient and an informant questionnaire. 107 Combining an informant questionnaire with other simple or domain-specific measures improved accuracy and diagnostic utility. 106 The GPCOG is a 1-page scale that can be administered in 5 minutes for a total score of 9. A score of 0 to 4 indicates the need for detailed assessment and a score 5 to 15 warrants the need to get the informant interview that includes 6 questions for a score of 6, and a score of 0 to 3 warrants detailed cognitive assessment. 106 The MoCA, a domain-specific validated measure showed excellent sensitivity and specificity among multiple chronic diseases. 124 In addition, incorporating a simple screening measure such as the MOST within an annual wellness visit may provide an objective measure of cognition that will enable providers to develop a better personalized cognitive screening and a more accurate assessment for monitoring memory change over time. 63 –117,123
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services elected not to recommend a specific screening measure but encourages providers to use the algorithm for assessment of cognition and use structured cognitive assessment tools for both patients and informants utilizing GPCOG or an alternative measure such as the MoCA. 131 Unfortunately, evidence suggests that up to 81% of patients who met the criteria for MCI have never received a screening and had no documented diagnosis for MCI. 40 The first step in diagnosing MCI or dementia in persons with chronic diseases is to develop a best practice to screen all patients during annual wellness visits to primary care clinics. The individual practices need to develop a protocol for annual cognitive screening.
Patients waiting to be seen by the provider may complete cognitive screening using computer-based tests or hand-held devices such as a smartphone or tablet. Early detection and documentation of early cognitive impairment is vital in improving medical care and patient outcomes. Diagnosis and documentation of early cognitive impairment could inform all clinicians involved in patient care to determine treatment options that may require aspects of self-care and adjustments to accommodate cognitive decline. 40
Conclusion and Clinical Recommendation
In summary, clinicians should routinely screen for MCI in their patients, especially in patients with chronic diseases. When possible, the choice of test used for screening should be disease specific. However, there is a lack of validated cognitive screening measures for many chronic diseases. There is a need for simple measures that take less than 10 minutes such as the GPCOG, Mini-Cog, and MOST that require little training for health care personnel to administer. The Pew Internet survey reported that 90% of American adults own a mobile phone, 58% of those are smartphones, and 52% use social networking. 132 Mobile technology is transforming clinical practice for health care providers and offers powerful tools that are ultraportable and easy to use. Hence, smartphone-based cognitive screening tests may offer solutions in increasing the number of patients screened and treated for MCI in the early phases of cognitive decline. Future work should focus on translating available validated screening measures to a mobile technology format to enhance the utility of these screening tools in the busy primary care setting. More research is needed at the primary care setting to utilize technology-based smartphone apps to screen for early cognitive changes and offer clinical recommendation to halt the progression of MCI to AD among persons with chronic disease.
Footnotes
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
- 1. US Census Bureau. USA Statistics Brief; 2012. Web site. https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ (accessed March 16, 2014).
- 2. Alzheimer’s Association. 2014 Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figure; 2014. Web site. http://www.alz.org/downloads/facts_figures_2014.pdf (accessed March 16, 2014).
- 3. Brookmeyer R, Evans DA, Hebert L, et al. National estimates of the prevalence of Alzheimer's disease in the united states. Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7 (1):61–73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Petersen RC, Roberts RO, Knopman DS, et al. Mild cognitive impairment: ten years later. Arch Neurol. 2009;66 (12):1447–1455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Stephan BC, Brayne C, Savva GM, Matthews FE; Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Ageing Study. Occurrence of medical co-morbidity in mild cognitive impairment: implications for generalisation of MCI research. Age Ageing. 2011;40 (4):501–507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Katz MJ, Lipton RB, Hall CB, et al. Age-specific and sex-specific prevalence and incidence of mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and Alzheimer dementia in blacks and whites: a report from the Einstein aging study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2012;26 (4):335–343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Corsonello A, Pedone C, Carosella L, et al. Health status in older hospitalized patients with cancer or non-neoplastic chronic diseases. BMC Geriatr. 2005;5:10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Olazaran J, Torrero P, Cruz I, et al. Mild cognitive impairment and dementia in primary care: the value of medical history. Fam Pract. 2011;28 (4):385–392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Borson S, Frank L, Bayley PJ, et al. Improving dementia care: the role of screening and detection of cognitive impairment. Alzheimers Dement. 2013;9 (2):151–159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. De la Torre JC. Cardiovascular risk factors promote brain hypoperfusion leading to cognitive decline and dementia. Cardiovasc Psychiatry Neurol. 2012;2012:367516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Luchsinger JA. Type 2 diabetes and cognitive impairment: linking mechanisms. J Alzheimers Dis. 2012;30 (suppl 2):S185–S198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Marchant NL, Reed BR, Sanossian N, et al. The aging brain and cognition: contribution of vascular injury and abeta to mild cognitive dysfunction. JAMA Neurol. 2013;70 (4):488–495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Stephan BC, Hunter S, Harris D, et al. The neuropathological profile of mild cognitive impairment (MCI): a systematic review. Mol Psychiatry. 2012;17 (11):1056–1076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Almeida OP, Garrido GJ, Etherton-Beer C, et al. Brain and mood changes over 2 years in healthy controls and adults with heart failure and ischaemic heart disease. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15 (8):850–858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Melzer N, Hicking G, Bittner S, et al. Excitotoxic neuronal cell death during an oligodendrocyte-directed CD8+ T cell attack in the CNS gray matter. J Neuroinflammation. 2013;10:121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Albert MS, DeKosky ST, Dickson D, et al. The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the national institute on aging-Alzheimer’s association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7 (3):270–279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Riegel B, Dickson VV, Cameron J, et al. Symptom recognition in elders with heart failure. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2010;42 (1):92–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Villeneuve S, Pepin V, Rahayel S, et al. Mild cognitive impairment in moderate to severe COPD: a preliminary study. Chest. 2012;142 (6):1516–1523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Campbell NL, Boustani MA, Skopelja EN, Gao S, Unverzagt FW, Murray MD. Medication adherence in older adults with cognitive impairment: a systematic evidence-based review. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2012;10 (3):165–177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Elsawy B, Higgins KE. The geriatric assessment. Am Fam Physician. 2011;83 (1):48–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Duff K, Beglinger LJ, Adams WH. Validation of the modified telephone interview for cognitive status in amnestic mild cognitive impairment and intact elders. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2009;23 (1):38–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Ihle-Hansen H, Thommessen B, Wyller TB, et al. Incidence and subtypes of MCI and dementia 1 year after first-ever stroke in patients without pre-existing cognitive impairment. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2011;32 (6):401–407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Larner AJ. Screening utility of the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA): in place of—or as well as—the MMSE? Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24 (3):391–396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Lavery LL, Lu SY, Chang CC, Saxton J, Ganguli M. Cognitive assessment of older primary care patients with and without memory complaints. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22 (7):949–954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Brooks LG, Loewenstein DA. Assessing the progression of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease: current trends and future directions. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2010;2 (5):28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Posner HB, Cano S, Carrillo MC, et al. Establishing the psychometric underpinning of cognition measures for clinical trials of Alzheimer’s disease and its precursors: a new approach. Alzheimers Dement. 2013;9 (1 suppl):S56–S60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Gauthier S, Reisberg B, Zaudig M, et al. Mild cognitive impairment. Lancet. 2006;367 (9518):1262–1270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Hajduk AM, Lemon SC, McManus DD, et al. Cognitive impairment and self-care in heart failure. Clin Epidemiol. 2013;5:407–416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Munshi M, Grande L, Hayes M, et al. Cognitive dysfunction is associated with poor diabetes control in older adults. Diabetes Care. 2006;29 (8):1794–1799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Schou L, Ostergaard B, Rasmussen LS, Rydahl-Hansen S, Phanareth K. Cognitive dysfunction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—a systematic review. Respir Med. 2012;106 (8):1071–1081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Klymko KW, Artinian NT, Price JE, Abele C, Washington OG. Self-care production experiences in elderly African Americans with hypertension and cognitive difficulty. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2011;23 (4):200–208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Rae-Grant AD, Turner AP, Sloan A, Miller D, Hunziker J, Haselkorn JK. Self-management in neurological disorders: systematic review of the literature and potential interventions in multiple sclerosis care. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48 (9):1087–1100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Bryant J, McDonald VM, Boyes A, Sanson-Fisher R, Paul C, Melville J. Improving medication adherence in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review. Respir Res. 2013;14:109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Hawkins LA, Kilian S, Firek A, Kashner TM, Firek CJ, Silvet H. Cognitive impairment and medication adherence in outpatients with heart failure. Heart Lung. 2012;41 (6):572–582. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Barrios R, Montero J, Gonzalez-Moles MA, Baca P, Bravo M. Levels of scientific evidence of the quality of life in patients treated for oral cancer. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013;18 (4):e578–e584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Pressler SJ, Subramanian U, Kareken D, et al. Cognitive deficits and health-related quality of life in chronic heart failure. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2010;25 (3):189–198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Reginold W, Duff-Canning S, Meaney C, et al. Impact of mild cognitive impairment on health-related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2013;36 (1-2):67–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. McGuire LC, Ford ES, Ajani UA. The impact of cognitive functioning on mortality and the development of functional disability in older adults with diabetes: the second longitudinal study on aging. BMC Geriatr. 2006;6:8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Meng X, D’Arcy C. Mortality and morbidity hazards associated with cognitive status in seniors: a Canadian population prospective cohort study. Asia Pac Psychiatry. 2013;5 (3):175–182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Lin JS, O’Connor E, Rossom RC, Perdue LA, Eckstrom E. Screening for cognitive impairment in older adults: a systematic review for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159 (9):601–612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Petersen RC, Morris JC. Mild cognitive impairment as a clinical entity and treatment target. Arch Neurol. 2005;62 (7):1160–1163; discussion 1167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Counsell SR, Callahan CM, Tu W, Stump TE, Arling GW. Cost analysis of the geriatric resources for assessment and care of elders care management intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57 (8):1420–1426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Cullen B, O’Neill B, Evans JJ, Coen RF, Lawlor BA. A review of screening tests for cognitive impairment. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78 (8):790–799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Lam SC, Wong Y, Woo J. Reliability and validity of the abbreviated mental test (Hong Kong version) in residential care homes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58 (11):2255–2257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Jefferson AL, Wong S, Gracer TS, Ozonoff A, Green RC, Stern RA. Geriatric performance on an abbreviated version of the Boston naming test. Appl Neuropsychol. 2007;14 (3):215–223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Miotto EC, Campanholo KR, Rodrigues MM, Serrao VT, Lucia MC, Scaff M. Hopkins verbal learning test-revised and brief visuospatial memory test-revised: preliminary normative data for the Brazilian population. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2012;70 (12):962–965. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Paolo AM, Troster AI, Ryan JJ. California verbal learning test: normative data for the elderly. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1997;19 (2):220–234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Can SS, Gencay-Can A, Gunendi Z. Validity and reliability of the clock drawing test as a screening tool for cognitive impairment in patients with fibromyalgia. Compr Psychiatry. 2012;53 (1):81–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Maruff P, Thomas E, Cysique L, et al. Validity of the CogState brief battery: relationship to standardized tests and sensitivity to cognitive impairment in mild traumatic brain injury, schizophrenia, and AIDS dementia complex. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2009;24 (2):165–178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Annunziata MA, Muzzatti B, Giovannini L, Lucchini G. Cognitive functioning self-assessment scale (CFSS): preliminary psychometric data. Psychol Health Med. 2012;17 (2):207–212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Hall KS, Gao S, Emsley CL, Ogunniyi AO, Morgan O, Hendrie HC. Community screening interview for dementia (CSI ‘D’); performance in five disparate study sites. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2000;15 (6):521–531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Ross TP, Calhoun E, Cox T, Wenner C, Kono W, Pleasant M. The reliability and validity of qualitative scores for the controlled oral word association test. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007;22 (4):475–488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. O’Carroll RE, Conway S, Ryman A, Prentice N. Performance on the delayed word recall test (DWR) fails to differentiate clearly between depression and Alzheimer’s disease in the elderly. Psychol Med. 1997;27 (4):967–971. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Woods DL, Kishiyama MM, Yund EW, et al. Improving digit span assessment of short-term verbal memory. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2011;33 (1):101–111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Saka E, Elibol B. Enhanced cued recall and clock drawing test performances differ in Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease-related cognitive dysfunction. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2009;15 (9):688–691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Dubois B, Slachevsky A, Litvan I, Pillon B. The FAB: a frontal assessment battery at bedside. Neurology. 2000;55 (11):1621–1626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Brodaty H, Pond D, Kemp NM, et al. The GPCOG: a new screening test for dementia designed for general practice. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50 (3):530–534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Vanderploeg RD, Schinka JA, Jones T, Small BJ, Graves AB, Mortimer JA. Elderly norms for the Hopkins verbal learning test-revised. Clin Neuropsychol. 2000;14 (3):318–324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Jorm AF. The informant questionnaire on cognitive decline in the elderly (IQCODE): a review. Int Psychogeriatr. 2004;16 (3):275–293. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Borson S, Scanlan JM, Chen P, Ganguli M. The mini-cog as a screen for dementia: validation in a population-based sample. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51 (10):1451–1454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Teng EL, Chui HC. The modified mini-mental state (3MS) examination. J Clin Psychiatry. 1987;48 (8):314–318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Buschke H, Kuslansky G, Katz M, et al. Screening for dementia with the memory impairment screen. Neurology. 1999;52 (2):231–238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Libon DJ, Rascovsky K, Gross RG, et al. The Philadelphia brief assessment of cognition (PBAC): a validated screening measure for dementia. Clin Neuropsychol. 2011;25 (8):1314–1330. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Clionsky M, Clionsky E. Development and validation of the memory orientation screening test. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Dement. 2010;25 (8):650–656. doi:10.1177/1533317510386216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Davis JJ, Millis SR, Axelrod BN. Derivation of an embedded Rey auditory verbal learning test performance validity indicator. Clin Neuropsychol. 2012;26 (8):1397–1408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975;23 (10):433–441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Hessler J, Bronner M, Etgen T, et al. Suitability of the 6CIT as a screening test for dementia in primary care patients. Aging Ment Health. 2013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Cornoldi C, Mammarella IC. A comparison of backward and forward spatial spans. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008;61 (5):674–682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Strauss GP, Allen DN, Jorgensen ML, Cramer SL. Test–retest reliability of standard and emotional stroop tasks: an investigation of color-word and picture-word versions. Assessment. 2005;12 (3):330–337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Arbuthnott K, Frank J. Trail making test, part B as a measure of executive control: validation using a set-switching paradigm. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2000;22 (4):518–528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Kohli A, Kaur M. Wisconsin card sorting test: normative data and experience. Indian J Psychiatry. 2006;48 (3):181–184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Keefe RS, Goldberg TE, Harvey PD, Gold JM, Poe MP, Coughenour L. The brief assessment of cognition in schizophrenia: reliability, sensitivity, and comparison with a standard neurocognitive battery. Schizophr Res. 2004;68 (2-3):283–297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Jacobs SR, Jacobsen PB, Booth-Jones M, Wagner LI, Anasetti C. Evaluation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy cognitive scale with hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2007;33 (1):13–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Power C, Selnes OA, Grim JA, McArthur JC. HIV dementia scale: a rapid screening test. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1995;8 (3):273–278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Sacktor NC, Wong M, Nakasujja N, et al. The international HIV dementia scale: a new rapid screening test for HIV dementia. AIDS. 2005;19 (13):1367–1374. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Benedict RH, Amato MP, Boringa J, et al. Brief international cognitive assessment for MS (BICAMS): International standards for validation. BMC Neurol. 2012;12:55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Strober L, Englert J, Munschauer F, Weinstock-Guttman B, Rao S, Benedict RH. Sensitivity of conventional memory tests in multiple sclerosis: comparing the Rao brief repeatable neuropsychological battery and the minimal assessment of cognitive function in MS. Mult Scler. 2009;15 (9):1077–1084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Benedict RH, Cookfair D, Gavett R, et al. Validity of the minimal assessment of cognitive function in multiple sclerosis (MACFIMS). J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2006;12 (4):549–558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Benedict RH, Zivadinov R. Reliability and validity of neuropsychological screening and assessment strategies in MS. J Neurol. 2007;254(suppl 2):II22–II25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Isella V, Mapelli C, Morielli N, et al. Validity and metric of mini mental Parkinson and mini mental state examination in Parkinson’s disease. Neurol Sci. 2013;34 (10):1751–1758. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Pagonabarraga J, Kulisevsky J, Llebaria G, Garcia-Sanchez C, Pascual-Sedano B, Gironell A. Parkinson's disease-cognitive rating scale: a new cognitive scale specific for Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2008;23 (7):998–1005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Pagonabarraga J, Kulisevsky J, Llebaria G, et al. PDD-short screen: a brief cognitive test for screening dementia in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2010;25 (4):440–446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Kalbe E, Calabrese P, Kohn N, et al. Screening for cognitive deficits in Parkinson’s disease with the Parkinson neuropsychometric dementia assessment (PANDA) instrument. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2008;14 (2):93–101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Isella V, Mapelli C, Morielli N, et al. Diagnosis of possible mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease: validity of the SCOPA-cog. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2013;19 (12):1160–1163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Nokleby K, Boland E, Bergersen H, et al. Screening for cognitive deficits after stroke: a comparison of three screening tools. Clin Rehabil. 2008;22 (12):1095–1104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Molloy DW, Standish TI, Lewis DL. Screening for mild cognitive impairment: comparing the SMMSE and the ABCS. Can J Psychiatry. 2005;50 (1):52–58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Mioshi E, Dawson K, Mitchell J, Arnold R, Hodges JR. The Addenbrooke's cognitive examination revised (ACE-R): a brief cognitive test battery for dementia screening. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006;21 (11):1078–1085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Mansbach WE, MacDougall EE. Development and validation of the short form of the brief cognitive assessment tool (BCAT-SF). Aging Ment Health. 2012;16 (8):1065–1071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Heinik J, Werner P, Mendel A, Raikher B, Bleich A. The Cambridge cognitive examination (CAMCOG): validation of the Hebrew version in elderly demented patients. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 1999;14 (12):1006–1013. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Teng EL, Hasegawa K, Homma A, et al. The cognitive abilities screening instrument (CASI): a practical test for cross-cultural epidemiological studies of dementia. Int Psychogeriatr. 1994;6 (1):45–58; discussion 62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Drachman DA, Swearer JM. Screening for dementia: cognitive assessment screening test (CAST). Am Fam Physician. 1996;54 (6):1957–1962. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Anderson DA, Burton DB, Parker JD, Godding PR. A confirmatory factor analysis of the cognitive capacity screening examination in a clinical sample. Int J Neurosci. 2001;111 (3-4):221–233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Kalbe E, Kessler J, Calabrese P, et al. DemTect: a new, sensitive cognitive screening test to support the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and early dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004;19 (2):136–143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Jorm AF. A short form of the informant questionnaire on cognitive decline in the elderly (IQCODE): development and cross-validation. Psychol Med. 1994;24 (1):145–153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. Bank AL, Yochim BP, MacNeill SE, Lichtenberg PA. Expanded normative data for the Mattis dementia rating scale for use with urban, elderly medical patients. Clin Neuropsychol. 2000;14 (2):149–156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12 (3):189–198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Knopman DS, Knudson D, Yoes ME, Weiss DJ. Development and standardization of a new telephonic cognitive screening test: the Minnesota cognitive acuity screen (MCAS). Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 2000;13 (4):286–296. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bedirian V, et al. The Montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53 (4):695–699. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. Schwamm LH, Van Dyke C, Kiernan RJ, Merrin EL, Mueller J. The neurobehavioral cognitive status examination: comparison with the cognitive capacity screening examination and the mini-mental state examination in a neurosurgical population. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107 (4):486–491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100. Mate-Kole CC, Conway J, Catayong K, et al. Validation of the revised quick cognitive screening test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90 (9):1469–1477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101. Storey JE, Rowland JT, Basic D, Conforti DA, Dickson HG. The Rowland universal dementia assessment scale (RUDAS): a multicultural cognitive assessment scale. Int Psychogeriatr. 2004;16 (1):13–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102. Solomon PR, Hirschoff A, Kelly B, et al. A 7 minute neurocognitive screening battery highly sensitive to Alzheimer’s disease. Arch Neurol. 1998;55 (3):349–355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103. Frank L, Lenderking WR, Howard K, Cantillon M. Patient self-report for evaluating mild cognitive impairment and prodromal Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2011;3 (6):35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104. Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, et al. ; on behalf of the PROMIS Cooperative Group. Initial item banks and first wave testing of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) network: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidem. 2010;63 (11):1179–1194. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Scharre DW, Chang SI, Nagaraja HN, Yager-Schweller J, Murden RA. Community cognitive screening using the self-administered gerocognitive examination (SAGE) [published online January 13, 2014.]. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Hancock P, Larner AJ. Diagnostic utility of the informant questionnaire on cognitive decline in the elderly (IQCODE) and its combination with the Addenbrooke's cognitive examination-revised (ACE-R) in a memory clinic-based population. Int Psychogeriatr. 2009;21 (3):526–530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Kawas C, Karagiozis H, Resau L, Corrada M, Brookmeyer R. Reliability of the blessed telephone information-memory-concentration test. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1995;8 (4):238–242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108. Lachman ME, Agrigoroaei S, Tun PA, Weaver SL. Monitoring cognitive functioning: psychometric properties of the brief test of adult cognition by telephone. Assessment. 2013;21 (4):404–417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. Cook SE, Marsiske M, McCoy KJ. The use of the modified telephone interview for cognitive status (TICS-M) in the detection of amnestic mild cognitive impairment. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2009;22 (2):103–109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Go RC, Duke LW, Harrell LE, et al. Development and validation of a structured telephone interview for dementia assessment (STIDA): the NIMH genetics initiative. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1997;10 (4):161–167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111. Rapp SR, Legault C, Espeland MA, et al. Validation of a cognitive assessment battery administered over the telephone. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60 (9):1616–1623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112. Espeland MA, Rapp SR, Katula JA, et al. Telephone interview for cognitive status (TICS) screening for clinical trials of physical activity and cognitive training: the seniors health and activity research program pilot (SHARP-P) study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2011;26 (2):135–143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113. Pendlebury ST, Welch SJ, Cuthbertson FC, Mariz J, Mehta Z, Rothwell PM. Telephone assessment of cognition after transient ischemic attack and stroke: modified telephone interview of cognitive status and telephone Montreal cognitive assessment versus face-to-face Montreal cognitive assessment and neuropsychological battery. Stroke. 2013;44 (1):227–229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114. Fredrickson J, Maruff P, Woodward M, et al. Evaluation of the usability of a brief computerized cognitive screening test in older people for epidemiological studies. Neuroepidemiology. 2010;34 (2):65–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115. Brandt J, Rogerson M. Preliminary findings from an internet-based dementia risk assessment. Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7 (4):e94–e100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116. Dwolatzky T, Whitehead V, Doniger GM, et al. Validity of the Mindstreams computerized cognitive battery for mild cognitive impairment. J Mol Neurosci. 2004;24 (1):33–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117. Clionsky M, Clionsky E. Psychometric equivalence of a paper-based and computerized (iPad) version of the memory orientation screening test (MOST®). Clin Neuropsychol. 2014;28 (5):447–455. doi.10.1080/13854046.2014.913686. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118. Robbins RN, Brown H, Ehlers A, et al. A smartphone app to screen for HIV-related neurocognitive impairment. J Mob Technol Med. 2014;3 (1):23–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119. Riley WT, Pilkonis P, Cella D. Application of the national institutes of health patient-reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS) to mental health research. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2011;14 (4):201–208. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120. Bajaj JS, Thacker LR, Heuman DM, et al. The stroop smartphone application is a short and valid method to screen for minimal hepatic encephalopathy. Hepatology. 2013;58 (3):1122–1132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121. Kansagara D, Freeman M. A Systematic Evidence Review of the Signs and Symptoms of Dementia and Brief Cognitive Tests. VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program Center, Portland VA Medical Center, Portland, OR. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs; 2010. Web site. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK49021/120 (accessed March 16, 2014). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122. Milne BJ, Caspi A, Crump R, et al. The validity of the family history screen for assessing family history of mental disorders. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2009;150B (1):41–49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123. Clionsky M., Clionsky E. Identifying cognitive impairment in the annual wellness visit: who can you trust? J Family Practice. 2011;60 (11):653–659. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124. Hoops S, Nazem S, Siderowf AD, et al. Validity of the MoCA and MMSE in the detection of MCI and dementia in Parkinson disease. Neurology. 2009;73 (21):1738–1745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125. Athilingam P, King KB, Burgin SW, Ackerman M, Cushman LA, Chen L. Montreal cognitive assessment and mini-mental status examination compared as cognitive screening tools in heart failure. Heart Lung. 2011;40 (6):521–529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126. Pendlebury ST, Mariz J, Bull L, Mehta Z, Rothwell PM. MoCA, ACE-R, and MMSE versus the national institute of neurological disorders and stroke-Canadian stroke network vascular cognitive impairment harmonization standards neuropsychological battery after TIA and stroke. Stroke. 2012;43 (2):464–469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127. Larner AJ, Mitchell AJ. A meta-analysis of the accuracy of the Addenbrooke's cognitive examination (ACE) and the Addenbrooke's cognitive examination-revised (ACE-R) in the detection of dementia. Int Psychogeriatr. 2014;26 (4):555–563. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128. Brown J, Pengas G, Dawson K, Brown LA, Clatworthy P. Self administered cognitive screening test (TYM) for detection of Alzheimer’s disease: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2009;338:b2030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129. Brouillette RM, Foil H, Fontenot S, et al. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of a smartphone based application for the assessment of cognitive function in the elderly. PLoS One. 2013;8 (6):e65925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130. Young J, Anstey KJ, Cherbuin N. Online memory screening—are older adults interested and can it work? Aging Ment Health. 2012;16 (7):931–937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131. Cordell CB, Borson S, Boustani M, et al. Alzheimer's association recommendations for operationalizing the detection of cognitive impairment during the Medicare annual wellness visit in a primary care setting. Alzheimers Dement. 2013;9 (2):141–150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132. Pew Internet. Mobile Technology Fact Sheet; 2014. Accessed on January 7, 2014 Web site. http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/131.