The Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status is More Predictive of Memory Abilities Than the Mini-Mental State Examination

Abstract

Although not as popular as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (mTICS) has some distinct advantages when screening cognitive functioning in older adults. The current study compared these 2 cognitive screening measures in their ability to predict performance on a memory composite (ie, delayed recall of verbal and visual information) in a cohort of 121 community-dwelling older adults, both at baseline and after 1 year. Both the MMSE and the mTICS significantly correlated with the memory composite at baseline (r’s of .41 and .62, respectively) and at 1 year (r’s of .36 and .50, respectively). At baseline, stepwise linear regression indicated that the mTICS and gender best predicted the memory composite score (R ² = .45, P < .001), and the MMSE and other demographic variables did not significantly improve the prediction. At 1 year, the results were very similar. Despite its lesser popularity, the mTICS may be a more attractive option when screening for cognitive abilities in this age range.

Keywords

memory cognitive screening geriatrics

Introduction

The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)¹ remains one of the most widely used cognitive screening instruments,^2,3 but it has been criticized for a number of shortcomings,^4,5 including being less sensitive to milder cognitive impairments in older adults. Although the MMSE assesses general cognition, this screening measure has been extensively used in clinical trials for Alzheimer disease, where memory is a primary deficit.^6,7 Therefore, 1 reason for its decreased sensitivity in milder cases (eg, mild Alzheimer disease and amnestic mild cognitive impairment) might be its minimal assessment of memory. For example, only 20% of the total points on the MMSE come from memory items (3 for immediate registration and 3 for recall after a brief delay).

Conversely, other cognitive screening measures have a higher memory load. For example, the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (mTICS)^8,9 devotes twice as much of its total score to memory (ie, 20 of its 50 points to immediate and delayed recall of a list of 10 items) compared to the MMSE, which may make it more sensitive in identifying memory changes in patients. This measure was developed to identify dementia in community-dwelling cohorts of older adults. For example, Welsh et al⁸ used the mTICS to classify cognitively normal elders from those with mild cognitive impairments and dementia. Brandt et al¹⁰ used this screening instrument in a large study of Alzheimer disease in aging twin veterans. The mTICS has other distinct advantages over the MMSE, including that it can be administered over the telephone. Like the MMSE, the mTICS has age- and education-corrected normative data,¹¹ it is associated with more formal neuropsychological test results,¹² and it can discriminate cognitively intact elders from those with amnestic mild cognitive impairment.¹³

Although multiple studies have reported modest to high correlations between scores on the mTICS and the MMSE in geriatric samples,^14

–19 and the mTICS has shown modest relationships with memory tests in neuropsychological batteries^17,20 in older cohorts, to our knowledge, no studies have compared the MMSE and mTICS in their ability to predict current and future cognition on formal neuropsychological tests. If these screening measures accurately predict performance on more traditional cognitive measures, then their value in clinical practice and research settings increases. Therefore, the current study sought to compare these 2 cognitive screening measures in their ability to predict memory functioning on an in-person evaluation in a cohort of community-dwelling older adults, both at baseline and after 1 year. Based on our experience using these measures, it was hypothesized that the mTICS would better predict memory functioning compared to the MMSE.

Methods

Participants

One hundred twenty-one community-dwelling older adults (aged 65 and older) participated in this study, and these individuals have been previously described.¹² They were mostly female (77.7%) and mostly caucasian (96.7%), with a mean age of 74.8 (6.6) years and mean education of 15.4 (2.8) years. These individuals also showed few symptoms of depression (30-item Geriatric Depression Scale: M = 4.5, standard deviation = 3.8). Of these individuals, 81 also completed a 1-year follow-up visit, and their demographics are similar to the larger group (eg, 76.5% female, 97.5% caucasian, mean age of 74.9 [6.8] years, mean education of 15.4 [2.9] years).

Procedures

Before the project began, the study protocol and all study procedures were approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board. Participants were recruited for this study by community newsletters and presentations at senior centers and independent living facilities. All participants provided written informed consent prior to participation in study procedures. Monetary compensation was also provided for participants’ time.

Participants were screened for memory impairments over the telephone with the mTICS. Any individual scoring 19 or below was excluded, as this indicated frank dementia,²¹ and the study focused on persons with normal cognition or those experiencing mild cognitive impairment. Other exclusion criteria included history of major neurological disease (eg, dementia, traumatic brain injury, and stroke), psychiatric illness (eg, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia), or current depression (30-item Geriatric Depression Scale >15). Participants passing the mTICS screening were invited for an in-person baseline cognitive assessment.

The baseline cognitive assessment included a brief medical history interview, MMSE, Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), Brief Visuospatial Memory Test—Revised (BVMT-R), and Hopkins Verbal Learning Test—Revised (HVLT-R). The 1-year follow-up assessment included the above-mentioned assessments with the exception of the MMSE. All measures were administered and scored according to their respective test manuals by trained research assistants.

Measures of Interest

The MMSE¹ is a widely used brief screening measure of cognition that taps several different areas of cognition, including orientation, attention, language, and memory. Scores range from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognition. A total of 6 points can be earned on memory items. The MMSE has demonstrated adequate reliability and validity, especially in the assessment of geriatric patients with notable cognitive deficits.⁵

The mTICS^8,9,17 is also brief, and it can be administered in person or over the telephone. It is a 14-item measure with scores ranging from 0 to 50, with higher scores indicating better cognition. It also measures orientation, attention, language, and memory, with a total of 20 points devoted to memory. It also has research to support its reliability and validity in elderly samples.^12,13

Data Analysis

First, 2 memory composite scores (baseline and 1 year) were calculated for each participant by averaging the standard scores on the RBANS Delayed Memory Index, the HVLT-R Delayed Recall, and the BVMT-R Delayed Recall. Second, correlations were calculated between the 2 screening measures (mTICS and MMSE) and the 2 memory composite scores. Third, 2 sets of stepwise linear regression models were then calculated. In the first set, the baseline memory composite score was the criterion variable, and the mTICS, MMSE, age, education, and gender were the predictor variables. In a second set, the 1-year memory composite score was the criterion variable, with the same predictor variables. In each of these regression models, collinearity diagnostics did not appear to be problematic (eg, tolerance 0.68-1.0, variance inflation factor 1.0-1.5).

Results

In the sample of 121 participants who completed baseline memory testing, the mean total MMSE score was 28.1 (1.8), with a range of 20 to 30, the mean total mTICS score was 36.5 (5.1), with a range of 20 to 48, and the mean baseline memory composite score was 97.7 (14.4), with a range of 52.7 to 123.3 (see Table 1). Although the mTICS and baseline memory composite were normally distributed, the MMSE was not (Shapiro-Wilk P < .001). As such, nonparametric correlations (Spearman ρ) was used. The MMSE and the baseline memory composite scores significantly correlated (r = .38, P < .001), and the mTICS was also significantly correlated with baseline memory composite scores (r = .59, P < .001). Fisher r to z transformations indicated that the mTICS was more highly correlated with the baseline composite than was the MMSE (z = −2.13, P = .02).

Table 1.

Demographic and Cognitive Data on Sample.^a

	Baseline Sample	One-Year Sample
Age, years	74.8 (6.6) 65-90	74.9 (6.7) 65-90
Education, years	15.4 (2.8) 8-22	15.4 (2.9) 12-22
Gender (female)	77%	77%
mTICS	36.5 (5.1) 20-48	36.7 (5.4) 20-48
MMSE	28.1 (1.8) 20-30	28.2 (1.7) 22-30
Baseline memory composite	97.7 (14.5) 52.7-123.3	98.8 (14.6) 52.7-123.3
One-year memory composite	n/a	99.1 (14.2) 62.7-125.3

Abbreviations: mTICS, modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination.

^aWhere applicable, means and standard deviations (in parentheses) are presented in the upper part of each cell, with ranges in the lower part of cells.

Stepwise linear regression indicated that the mTICS significantly predicted the baseline memory composite score (F _{1, 119} = 73.76, R ² = .38, P < .001, see Table 2). Gender significantly added to this equation (ΔR ² = .07, P < .001). The MMSE score did not significantly improve the prediction of the baseline memory composite scores (P = .34). Age and education also did not significantly improve this equation (age: P = .79, education: P = .79).

Table 2.

Regression Table.^a

Variable	R ²	F(df), P	SEE	Constant	Equation
Baseline memory
mTICS	.38	73.8(1.119), <.001	11.4	34.2	+(1.7 × mTICS)
+Gender	.45	49.3(2.118), <.001	10.8	46.8	+(1.7 × mTICS) − (9.3 × gender)
One-year memory
mTICS	.26	29.5(1.79), <.001	12.2	48.4	+(1.4 × mTICS)
+Gender	.33	20.8(2.78), <.001	11.6	59.4	+(1.4 × mTICS) − (9.1 × gender)

Abbreviations: SEE, standard error of the estimate of the regression model; mTICS, modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status.

^aGender (1 = female and 2 = male).

In the sample of 81 participants who completed 1-year follow-up memory testing, the mean total MMSE score was 28.2 (1.7), with a range of 22 to 30, the mean total mTICS score was 36.7 (5.4), with a range of 20 to 48, and the mean 1-year memory composite score was 99.1 (14.2), with a range of 62.7 to 125.3 (see Table 1). There were no differences between those with follow-up data and those without follow-up data on any demographic (age, education, and gender) or cognitive (MMSE, mTICS, and baseline memory composite) variable. Spearman correlation of the MMSE and 1-year memory composite score was significant (r = .41, P = .001) as was the correlation of the mTICS and 1-year memory composite (r = .55, P < .001). Fisher r to z transformation was not statistically significant (z = −1.14, P = .12) indicating that these 2 correlations were comparable.

Stepwise linear regression again indicated that the mTICS significantly predicted the 1-year memory composite score (F _{1, 79} = 29.49, R ² = .27, P < .001) with the addition of gender (ΔR ² = .08, P = .004, see Table 2). The other variables (MMSE, age, education) did not significantly improve the prediction (P = .21, P = .29, P = .52, respectively).

In secondary analyses, when each individual delayed memory score was considered separately, the results were very similar to those obtained using the memory composite score (ie, mTICS predicted memory better than the MMSE). This was true for both baseline and 1-year memory scores. The 2 screening measures were also compared to the baseline memory composite with receiver–operating curves (ROCs) analyses. In these, the baseline memory composite was dichotomized as ≤85 being “impaired” and >85 being “intact.” When lower scores on the screening measures were indicative of greater memory impairment on the composite, the resulting areas under the curve (AUCs) for the mTICS was 0.85 and the MMSE was 0.77, which were statistically comparable (z = −1.32, P = .09).

Discussion

Although prior studies have found modest to high correlations between the mTICS and the MMSE in geriatric samples,^14

–19 none have compared these 2 cognitive screening measures in their ability to predict current memory functioning in community-dwelling older adults. Consistent with our primary hypothesis, the mTICS was the best predictor of current memory functioning in this cohort. This is generally consistent with prior findings showing that the mTICS had modest correlations with memory tests in samples of older adults.^17,20 Gender significantly added to the prediction of current memory functioning, but the MMSE and other demographic variables (eg, age, education) did not. These results were very similar in a smaller subset of the sample who were reevaluated for memory functioning after 1 year. Again, mTICS and gender best predicted this follow-up memory composite, whereas MMSE and other demographic variables did not significantly contribute to the model.

Despite the statistically significant prediction models, only 35% to 45% of the variance of current and 1-year memory functioning was predicted by mTICS and gender. Clearly, additional variables need to be considered to improve these prediction models if they are to have more clinical relevance. Our sample was almost exclusively caucasian, so greater diversity may improve the contribution of this variable, as racial and ethnic differences are common on neuropsychological tests.²² Predominant occupation might be another variable worth examining in the future, since it can also be predictive of late-life cognitive abilities.²³ Other possible variables of interest include affect,²⁴ personality,²⁵ and physical functioning.²⁶

Our initial assumption was that the mTICS would more strongly predict a memory composite compared to the MMSE because the former measure devotes more of its total score to memory items (eg, 40% vs 20%, respectively). Although the current study was not specifically designed to address this assumption, the data seem to suggest that it is not just the memory items that make the mTICS sensitive. For example, as reported previously, the total score on the mTICS correlated with the baseline memory composite at 0.62. However, memory-specific items within the mTICS showed slightly smaller correlations with the memory composite (eg, immediate recall r = .48, delayed recall r = .52, and immediate and delayed recall combined r = .53). Clearly, the nonmemory items of the mTICS also contribute to its sensitivity to memory functioning. It is also possible that the additional memory items on the mTICS may have a paradoxical effect. For example, patients may experience fatigue or stress in response to the longer list of items on the mTICS (compared to the MMSE), which could reduce its ability to accurately tap memory.

Despite the potential benefits of the mTICS identified in this study, there are some limitations of this work that should be noted. First, our sample was exclusively cognitively intact to mildly affected. Individuals with more significant cognitive impairments (mTICS < 20) were excluded. It is unclear whether these results would generalize to patients with dementia or other serious cognitive deficits. Second, our sample was also nearly all caucasian, well educated, willing to participate in longitudinal research, and with minimal depression, and generalizability to more diverse samples needs to be verified. Third, a formal hearing evaluation was not conducted on participants, and Pachana et al¹⁵ has shown that mTICS scores can be adversely affected by hearing loss. Fourth, the current results only examined a memory composite at baseline and 1 year, when cognitive domains beyond memory may be of interest as well. Fifth, the differences between the mTICS and the MMSE may not be huge, although results favored the mTICS in this sample. For example, in our secondary analyses, ROC analyses showed that the AUC for the mTICS was higher than that for the MMSE, although both were adequate. Future comparisons between these 2 measures are needed. Finally, the mTICS was used as a screening measure in this study, and it may have biased the sample. Using the MMSE or another screening measure may have led to a different composition of patients. Similarly, linking the cognitive screening scores to widely used clinical and biomarker variables (eg, clinical diagnoses, amyloid β or τ levels, structural or functional magnetic resonance imaging) would be another future step.

Even with the above-noted limitations, the current results provide more information about the mTICS and how it relates to memory functioning in older adults. This may make it a more attractive option when screening for memory abilities in this age range. It is possible that this telephone-based cognitive screening instrument may supplant the MMSE for these types of milder cases. It is worth reiterating that these analyses focused on predicting memory abilities from screening measures designed to assess global cognition, as memory is one of the earliest and primary deficits seen in mild Alzheimer disease and amnestic mild cognitive impairment, 2 conditions on which clinical trials are currently focused.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Aging or the National Institutes of Health.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) declared the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The project described was supported by research grants from the National Institutes on Aging: K23 AG028417 (KD).

References

Folstein

McHugh

, “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12 (3):189–198.

Shulman

Herrmann

Brodaty

. IPA survey of brief cognitive screening instruments. Int Psychogeriatr. 2006;18 (2):281–294.

Cullen

O’Neill

Evans

Coen

Lawlor

. A review of screening tests for cognitive impairment. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78 (8):790–799.

Nieuwenhuis-Mark

. The death knoll for the MMSE: has it outlived its purpose? J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2010;23 (3):151–157.

Tombaugh

McIntyre

. The mini-mental state examination: a comprehensive review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40 (9):922–935.

Khan

Martín-Montañez

Navarro-Lobato

Muly

. Memory deficits in aging and neurological diseases. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2014;122:1–29.

Jahn

. Memory loss in Alzheimer’s disease. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2013;15 (4):445–454.

Welsh

Breitner

Magruder-Habib

. Detection of dementia in the elderly using telephone screening of cognitive status. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 1993;6(2):103–110.

Brandt

Spencer

Folstein

. The telephone interview for cognitive status. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 1988;1(2):111–117.

10.

Brandt

Welsh

Breitner

Folstein

Helms

Christian

. Hereditary influences on cognitive functioning in older men. A study of 4000 twin pairs. Arch Neurol. 1993;50 (6):599–603.

11.

Dennett

Tometich

Duff

. Demographic corrections for the modified telephone interview for cognitive status. Clin Neuropsychol. 2013;27 (7):1121–1130.

12.

Duff

Dennett

Tometich

. Predicting current memory with the modified telephone interview for cognitive status. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2012;27 (3):175–179.

13.

Duff

Beglinger

Adams

. 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.

14.

de Jager

Budge

Clarke

. Utility of TICS-M for the assessment of cognitive function in older adults. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2003;18 (4):318–324.

15.

Pachana

Alpass

Blakey

Long

. A comparison of the MMSE and the TICS-m in hearing-impaired older adults. Australasian J Ageing. 2006;25 (2):89–93.

16.

Seo

Lee

Kim

. Validity of the telephone interview for cognitive status (TICS) and modified TICS (TICSm) for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia screening. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2011;52 (1):e26–e30.

17.

Plassman

Newman

Welsh

Helms

Breitner

JCS

. Properties of the telephone interview for cognitive status. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 1994;7 (3):235–241.

18.

Fong

Fearing

Jones

. Telephone interview for cognitive status: creating a crosswalk with the Mini-Mental State Examination. Alzheimers Dement. 2009;5 (6):492–497.

19.

Järvenpää

Rinne

Räihä

. Characteristics of two telephone screens for cognitive impairment. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2002;13 (3):149–55.

20.

Crooks

Petitti

Robins

Buckwalter

. Cognitive domains associated with performance on the telephone interview for cognitive status-modified. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2006;21 (1):45–53.

21.

Lines

McCarroll

Lipton

Block

; Prevention of Alzheimer’s In Society’s Elderly Study Group. Telephone screening for amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Neurology. 2003;60 (2):261–266.

22.

Patton

Duff

Schoenberg

Mold

Scott

Adams

. Performance of cognitively normal African Americans on the RBANS in community dwelling older adults. Clin Neuropsychol. 2003;17 (4):515–530.

23.

Correa Ribeiro

Lopes

Lourenco

. Complexity of lifetime occupation and cognitive performance in old age. Occup Med (Lond). 2013;63 (8):556–562.

24.

Richards

Barnett

. Lifetime affect and midlife cognitive function: prospective birth cohort study. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;204 (3):194–199.

25.

Suchy

Williams

Kraybill

Franchow

Butner

. Instrumental activities of daily living among community-dwelling older adults: personality associations with self-report, performance, and awareness of functional difficulties. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2010;65 (5):542–550.

26.

Cooper

Kuh

Cooper

. Objective measures of physical capability and subsequent health: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2011;40 (1):14–23.