Cited by 43Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

Three sides of the same coin: Measuring global cognitive impairment with the MMSE, ADAS‐cog and CAMCOG

Wouters, Hans, van Gool, Willem A., Schmand, Ben, Zwinderman, Aeilko H., Lindeboom, Robert·2010·International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The total scores of the ADAS-cog, MMSE and CAMCOG, comprising various cognitive tasks, are widely used to measure a dimension of global cognitive impairment. It is unknown, however, whether this dimension is common to these instruments. This hampers comparisons when either of these instruments is used. The extent to which these instruments share a common dimension of global cognitive impairment and how their scores relate was examined. METHODS: Rasch analysis of CAMCOG and MMSE data of participants from a population based study and two memory clinics pooled with ADAS-cog and MMSE data of participants from three RCTs (overall N = 1566) to estimate a common dimension of global cognitive impairment and to examine the goodness of fit of the individual items to this dimension. RESULTS: Using the estimated common dimension of global cognitive impairment, the total scores of the instruments could be related, e.g. a mean level of global cognitive impairment corresponded to a predicted score of 11.4 (ADAS-cog), 72.6 (CAMCOG) and 22.2 (MMSE). When revised according to The Rasch validity analyses, every individual item could be fitted to the dimension. CONCLUSIONS: The MMSE, ADAS-cog and CAMCOG reflect a valid common dimension of global cognitive impairment, which enables comparisons of RCTs that use the ADAS-cog and observational studies that use the CAMCOG and MMSE.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/gps.2402

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The CAMCOG has good inter-rater reliability (r = .97), high sensitivity (92%) and specificity (96%).

    “The CAMCOG has good inter-rater reliability (r = .97),high sensitivity (92%) and specificity (96%: Roth et al., 1986;Wouters, van Gool, Schmand, Zwinderman, & Lindeboom, 2010).”

    From Living alone and cognitive function in later life (2019) · cites this paper as Wouters et al., 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wouters, H., van Gool, W. A., Schmand, B., Zwinderman, A. H., & Lindeboom, R.
Affiliations
Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Wouters, Hans
Venue
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07-07
Volume
25
Issue
8
Pages
770-779
ISSN
  • 0885-6230 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1166
OpenAlex
W2081353032
Cited by
43
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 7
FWCI
2.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Internationale Stichting Alzheimer Onderzoek
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
global cognitive impairment, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale, CAMCOG, Mini-Mental State Examination, Rasch analysis, construct validity, cognitive assessment tools, instrument comparability, dementia
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cognition Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review