Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Creates conversion tables for cognitive tests to improve comparability in older adults, suggesting standardization benefits.
Background The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Q mci ) screen is a short cognitive screening instrument developed to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI). No conversion tables exist between the Q mci screen and commonly-used instruments such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) or Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), limiting comparability across settings and studies. Objective To create bidirectional conversion tables between the Q mci screen, MMSE, and MoCA in a memory clinic cohort. Methods A secondary analysis of data from 551 older adults attending a single-center Irish university-hospital memory clinic (2012–2014) was performed. Participants were classified as normal (n = 101), subjective cognitive disorder (n = 73), MCI (n = 103), and dementia (n = 274). Q mci screen, MMSE, and MoCA scores were available for all participants. Equipercentile equating with log-linear smoothing generated score equivalencies and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between instruments. Results The Q mci screen demonstrated a broader scoring range and greater sensitivity in the mid-range of cognitive performance than either the MMSE or MoCA. Conversion tables revealed a non-linear relationship between instruments, with ceiling effects observed for the MMSE and MoCA. At established cut-offs, an MMSE score of 24/30 equated to a Q mci screen score of 42/100, while a MoCA score of 26/30 corresponded to a Q mci screen score of 71/100 (95% CI: 68–74). Bidirectional tables allow translation of scores across tools. Conclusions This study provides validated conversion tables between the Q mci screen and two widely-used cognitive instruments, to support the use of the Q mci screen in research (facilitating cross-instrument comparability and harmonization across studies), and clinical settings (determining eligibility for disease-modifying therapies).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O’Caoimh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: