Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders (대한치매학회지)

Korean Dementia Association (대한치매학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparison of Item Characteristics and Test Information Between the K-MMSE~2:SV and K-MMSE

  • Jihyang Kim (Department of Psychology, College of Social Sciences, Hallym University) ;
  • Seungmin Jahng (Department of Psychology, College of Social Sciences, Sungkyunkwan University) ;
  • SangYun Kim (Department of Neurology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Yeonwook Kang (Department of Psychology, College of Social Sciences, Hallym University)
  • Received : 2024.07.04
  • Accepted : 2024.07.18
  • Published : 2024.07.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background and Purpose: The Korean-Mini Mental State Examination, 2nd edition (K-MMSE~2) was recently released. This study aimed to determine whether the K-MMSE~2: Standard Version (K-MMSE~2:SV) had the same test characteristics as the K-MMSE. Methods: A total of 1,514 healthy community-based participants aged 19 to 90 years were administered the K-MMSE~2:SV Blue Form along with the language items from the K-MMSE. The item and test characteristics and test information for the K-MMSE~2:SV and K-MMSE were compared using Item Response Theory analysis. Results: Item discriminations for the K-MMSE~2:SV and K-MMSE were above the moderate range for all items except Recall. Most of the items on the K-MMSE~2:SV and K-MMSE had item category difficulty in the very easy or easy range. The test information curve (TIC) showed that the K-MMSE~2:SV and K-MMSE provide almost the same amount of information (27.86 vs. 28.44), with both tests providing the most information at an ability level of -1.57. The generalizability (G) coefficient for the K-MMSE~2:SV and K-MMSE was 0.99. Conclusions: These results indicate that the K-MMSE~2:SV and K-MMSE are equally optimal tests for screening for mild cognitive impairment and early dementia. Given that the amount of test information provided by the two tests was almost identical, the shapes of the TICs were very similar, and the G coefficient was close to 1, we can conclude that the K-MMSE and K-MMSE~2:SV are equivalent tests.

Keywords

References

  1. Kang Y. A normative study of the Korean-Mini Mental State Examination (K-MMSE) in the elderly. Korean J Psychol Gen 2006;25:1-12.
  2. 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;12:189-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
  3. Callahan CM, Unverzagt FW, Hui SL, Perkins AJ, Hendrie HC. Six-item screener to identify cognitive impairment among potential subjects for clinical research. Med Care 2002;40:771-781. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200209000-00007
  4. Mitchell AJ. Cognitive Screening Instruments. Cham: Springer, 2017;37-48.
  5. Modrego PJ, Fayed N, Pina MA. Conversion from mild cognitive impairment to probable Alzheimer's disease predicted by brain magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Am J Psychiatry 2005;162:667-675. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.4.667
  6. Malloy PF, Cummings JL, Coffey CE, Duffy J, Fink M, Lauterbach EC, et al. Cognitive screening instruments in neuropsychiatry: a report of the Committee on Research of the American Neuropsychiatric Association. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 1997;9:189-197. https://doi.org/10.1176/jnp.9.2.189
  7. Crum RM, Anthony JC, Bassett SS, Folstein MF. Population-based norms for the Mini-Mental State Examination by age and educational level. JAMA 1993;269:2386-2391. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1993.03500180078038
  8. Kase CS, Wolf PA, Kelly-Hayes M, Kannel WB, Beiser A, D'Agostino RB. Intellectual decline after stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke 1998;29:805-812. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.29.4.805
  9. Raskind MA, Peskind ER, Wessel T, Yuan W. Galantamine in AD: a 6-month randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a 6-month extension. The Galantamine USA-1 Study Group. Neurology 2000;54:2261-2268. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.54.12.2261
  10. Rogers SL, Doody RS, Mohs RC, Friedhoff LT; Donepezil Study Group. Donepezil improves cognition and global function in Alzheimer disease: a 15-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:1021-1031. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.158.9.1021
  11. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, White T, Messer MA. MMSE-2 User's Manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources, 2010.
  12. Kang Y, Jahng S, Kim SY, Korean Dementia Association. Korean-Mini Mental State Examination, 2nd Edition (K-MMSE~2). Seoul: Hakjisa, 2020.
  13. Kang Y, Na DL, Hahn SH. A validity study on the Korean Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE) in dementia patients. J Korean Neurol Assoc 1997;15:300-308.
  14. Seong TJ. Analysis of item and tests using classical test theory and item response theory. J Sci Educ Res Inst Korea Natl Univ Educ 1998:143-170.
  15. Orlando Edelen MO, Thissen D, Teresi JA, Kleinman M, Ocepek-Welikson K. Identification of differential item functioning using item response theory and the likelihood-based model comparison approach. Application to the Mini-Mental State Examination. Med Care 2006;44:S134-S142. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000245251.83359.8c
  16. Schultz-Larsen K, Kreiner S, Lomholt RK. Mini-Mental Status Examination: mixed Rasch model item analysis derived two different cognitive dimensions of the MMSE. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:268-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.007
  17. Teresi JA. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE): scaling the MMSE using item response theory (IRT). J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:256-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.009
  18. Aiello EN, Esposito A, Pucci V, Mondini S, Bolognini N, Appollonio I. Italian telephone-based Mini-Mental State Examination (Itel-MMSE): item-level psychometric properties. Aging Clin Exp Res 2022;34:1259-1265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-021-02041-4
  19. Lou MF, Dai YT, Huang GS, Yu PJ. Identifying the most efficient items from the Mini-Mental State Examination for cognitive function assessment in older Taiwanese patients. J Clin Nurs 2007;16:502-508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01551.x
  20. Medonca de Melo D, Goncalves Barbosa AJ, Ribeiro de Castro N, Liberalesso Neri A. Mini-Mental State Examination in Brazil: an item response theory analysis. Paideia 2020;30:e3014.
  21. Christensen KJ, Multhaup KS, Nordstrom S, Voss K. A cognitive battery for dementia: development and measurement characteristics. Psychol Assess 1991;3:168-174. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.3.2.168
  22. Muraki E. A generalized partial credit model: application of an EM algorithm. Appl Psychol Meas 1992;16:159-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169201600206
  23. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1991;91-108.
  24. Brennan RL. Generalizability Theory. New York: Springer, 2001;4-20.
  25. Cronbach LJ, Gleser GC, Nanda H, Rajaratnam N. The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Score and Profiles. New York: Wiley, 1972;263-344.
  26. Shavelson RJ, Webb NM. Generalizability Theory: A Primer. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1991;83-98.
  27. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2023.
  28. Rizopoulos D. ltm: An R package for latent variable modelling and item response theory analyses. J Stat Softw 2006;17:1-25. https://doi.org/10.1360/jos170001
  29. Seong TJ. Understanding and Applying Item Response Theory. 2nd ed. Paju: Kyoyookbook, 2016;46-49.
  30. Seong TJ. Modern Education Evaluation. 3rd ed. Seoul: Hakjisa, 2010;274-275.
  31. Baker PB. The Basic of Item Response Theory. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, 2001;33-126.
  32. Bleecker ML, Bolla-Wilson K, Kawas C, Agnew J. Age-specific norms for the Mini-Mental State Exam. Neurology 1988;38:1565-1568. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.38.10.1565
  33. Galasko D, Klauber MR, Hofstetter CR, Salmon DP, Lasker B, Thal LJ. The Mini-Mental State Examination in the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Arch Neurol 1990;47:49-52. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1990.00530010061020
  34. Franco-Marina F, Garcia-Gonzalez JJ, Wagner-Echeagaray F, Gallo J, Ugalde O, Sanchez-Garcia S, et al. The Mini-mental State Examination revisited: ceiling and floor effects after score adjustment for educational level in an aging Mexican population. Int Psychogeriatr 2010;22:72-81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610209990822
  35. Pendlebury ST, Markwick A, de Jager CA, Zamboni G, Wilcock GK, Rothwell PM. Differences in cognitive profile between TIA, stroke and elderly memory research subjects: a comparison of the MMSE and MoCA. Cerebrovasc Dis 2012;34:48-54. https://doi.org/10.1159/000338905
  36. Piccinin AM, Muniz-Terrera G, Clouston S, Reynolds CA, Thorvaldsson V, Deary IJ, et al. Coordinated analysis of age, sex, and education effects on change in MMSE scores. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2013;68:374-390. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbs077