Critical Evaluation of COSMIN Scores in Scales for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease: A Comprehensive Review
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease Reports
Peng, X., Li, R. C., et al. (2024).
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease Reports, 8(1), 1596-1610.
<div>This systematic review investigates the psychometric properties of screening tools for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). While <span class="TextRun BCX8 SCXO242636685" lang="EN-US" xml:lang="EN-US" data-contrast="auto"><span class="NormalTextRun BCX8 SCXO242636685">SLPs may use these instruments, diagnosing MCI or dementia is out of scope of practice.</span></span></div>
Shanghai Municipal Health Commission (China); Shanghai Medical Innovation & Development Foundation (China)
From database inception to December 2023
<div>Quantitative studies</div>
156
<div>Notable cognitive assessment tools for MCI and AD were:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>the Telephone version of the Cantonese Mini-Mental State Examination (T-CMMSE),</li>
<li>the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and</li>
<li>the Hong Kong versions of the MoCA (HK-MoCA-A1 and A2).</li>
</ul>
<div>Limitations to this review include the potential for selection bias due to only including studies published in English or Spanish.</div>
</div>
<div>Specifically, the T-CMMSE had:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>excellent sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 96.7% for MCI;</li>
<li>excellent reliability (ICC = 0.99); and</li>
<li>good validity (Pearson's Correlation = 0.991 with the CMMSE).</li>
</ul>
<div>Limitations to this review include the potential for selection bias due to only including studies published in English or Spanish.</div>
</div>
<div>The MoCA had:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>poor sensitivity of 81%-82.6% and specificity of 69.7%-77% for MCI;</li>
<li>excellent sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 98% for AD;</li>
<li>excellent validity (Spearman's correlation Rho = 0.962);</li>
<li>poor reliability (ICC = 0.86); and</li>
<li>good internal consistency (Cronbach's α= 0.903).</li>
</ul>
<div>Limitations to this review include the potential for selection bias due to only including studies published in English or Spanish.</div>
</div>
<div>The HK-MoCA-A1 showed:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>good validity (Pearson's Correlation = 0.87);</li>
<li>good reliability (ICC = 0.99); and</li>
<li>good internal consistency (Cronbach's α= 0.79).</li>
</ul>
<div>
<div>The HK-MoCA-A2 showed:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>good validity (Pearson's Correlation = 0.79);</li>
<li>good reliability (ICC = 0.82); and</li>
<li>good internal consistency (Cronbach's α= 0.75).</li>
</ul>
<div>Limitations to this review include the potential for selection bias due to only including studies published in English or Spanish.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
