Sensitivity and Specificity of the Mini-Mental State Examination in a ...

Applied NeuropsychologyCopyright 2000 by2000, Vol. 7, No. 1, 25–31 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Sensitivity and Specificity of the Mini-Mental State Examination in aSpanish-Speaking PopulationOSTROSKY-SOLÍS, SENSITIVITY LÓPEZ-ARANGO, & SPECIFICITY & ARDILAFeggy Ostrosky-Solís, Gabriela López-Arango, and Alfredo ArdilaDepartment of Psychophysiology, National Autonomous University of Mexico,Mexico City, MexicoThe Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975) was givento a total of 430 normal participants divided into 3 age ranges (16–50, 51–65, and 66–89) and 4educational ranges (0, 1–4, 5–9, and ≥ 10 years). The educational level effect was notoriouslystronger than the age effect. Normal illiterate participants obtained scores that would correspondto severe cognitive alterations (M = 17.67); low education participants (1–4 years)would be classified with moderate cognitive alterations (M = 20.61). Sensitivity and specificityof the MMSE were established. Low sensitivity and specificity were found for both the participantswith 0 and 1 to 4 years of schooling, 50% and 72.73%, respectively. In participants withmore than 5 years of schooling, the specificity (86.36%) and sensitivity (86.36%) indexes werehigher. We concluded that the MMSE is an instrument with little diagnostic utility among participantswith a low level of education.Key words: MMSE, neuropsychology, Spanish-speaking participants, education effectThe Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), publishedby Folstein, Folstein, and McHugh (1975), isone of the most frequently used rating instruments inthe evaluation of the mental state in both clinical practiceand research (Crum, Anthony, Bassett, &Folstein, 1993). It was designed to quantify the degreeof dementia and delirium in psychiatric and neurologicalpatients. It consists of short and simple items thatpermit a rapid evaluation of various cognitive domains,including orientation, encoding, attention, recall,language, reading, writing, and drawing. Thescale has 11 items that add up to 30 points. It requires5 to 10 min for application, and when its ease andrapid administration are taken into consideration, ithas been widely used to detect cognitive alterations inpopulations classified as neurological, psychiatric,and geriatric (Lezak, 1995); to evaluate responses topharmacological treatment (Chatellier & Lancomblez,This project was partially supported by PAPITT (Programa deapoyo a proyectos de investigación y de inovación tecnológica),Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (IN300397).Requests for reprints should be sent to Feggy Ostrosky-Solís,Departamento Psicofisiología, Facultad de Psicología, Rivera deCupia #110–71 Lomas de Reforma, México D.F., México 11930.E-mail: feggy@servidor.unam.mx1990); as part of wider batteries, such as the Consortiumto Establish a Record of Alzheimer’s Disease(Morris et al., 1989); and as a screening instrument inboth population and epidemiological studies for thedetection of dementia (George, Landerman, Blazer, &Anthony, 1991; Li et al., 1980; Rovner, Kafonek,Flipp, & Folstein, 1990).In the original standardization with 63 normal participantsover age 55, Folstein et al. (1975) reported aperformance range between 24 and 30 points. Severalstudies (Anthony, LeResche, Niaz, von Korff, &Folstein, 1982; DePaulo, Folstein, & Gordon, 1980;Dick et al., 1984) suggest an optimum cutoff point of23/24 to separate patients with cognitive impairmentfrom those who are cognitively intact. Using a cutoffpoint of 23 and the psychiatric criterion, 87% sensitivityand 82% specificity have been reported (Folsteinet al., 1975). Nevertheless, subsequent studies haveonly reported 63% sensitivity for the participants with8 years of schooling or less and only 65.5% sensitivityfor participants older than 60 (Anthony et al.,1982).The MMSE has been translated into Spanish, and itsusefulness has been evaluated in cross-cultural studies(Bertolucci, Brucki, Campacci, & Juliano, 1994; Bird,Canino, Rubio, & Shrout, 1987; Escobar et al., 1986).25

SENSITIVITY & SPECIFICITYTable 1.Total Sample: Means and Standard Deviations by Age and Years of SchoolAge (Years)16–50 51–65 66–89Age Years of School Age Years of School Age Years of SchoolYears of School M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SDZero 40.0 9.35 0.0 0.0 59.5 2.74 0.0 0.00 72.2 4.56 0.0 0.001–4 28.6 9.60 2.9 1.04 58.5 3.83 2.2 .95 73.6 6.12 2.5 1.255–9 33.4 10.98 8.4 1.21 59.9 3.18 7.1 1.53 73.3 5.63 7.6 1.36≥10 27.5 7.74 14.9 3.04 57.9 3.23 15.7 3.85 73.0 4.71 13.1 2.60Note: N = 430Table 2. Matched Samples: Means and Standard Deviations ofAge and Years of SchoolMaterialCurrently in Mexico City, there are several translationsof the MMSE. After interviewing 10 clinicians,we selected the version used by 6 of them (see Appendix).It was found that some of the questions wereadapted to the characteristics of the Spanish-speakingpopulation. For example, the original item “What arethe four seasons of the year?” had been removed. Theseasons of the year are not relevant for orientation intropical and subtropical Spanish-speaking countrieswhere the dry and rainy seasons are more relevant climaticdifferences. The original phrase had been substitutedby “No iré si tu no llegas temprano” (“I won’t goif you don’t arrive early”). The total MMSE score wasobtained by adding up the correct answers.Statistical AnalysisAge (Years)Years of SchoolGroup n M SD M SDControl 40 73.10 6.99 7.28 4.65Dementia 40 74.15 8.17 7.00 4.65Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to analyzeage and education effects. A significance of p

OSTROSKY-SOLÍS, LÓPEZ-ARANGO, & ARDILATable 3.Means and Standard Deviations in the MMSE in the Total SampleAge (Years)16–50 51–65 66–89Years of School M SD M SD M SDZero 19.75 3.69 16.88 4.44 16.38 4.271–4 19.14 3.99 21.10 4.49 21.59 4.855–9 26.27 1.95 27.74 1.92 25.52 2.65≥ 10 27.93 1.96 28.27 1.83 26.34 3.90Note: N = 430. MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975).with increased age. This association between age andeducation is illustrated in Figure 1.When the average performance of the MMSE scoreof the matched samples was obtained, we noted that thenormal sample had an average of 25.37, whereas theaverage for the participants with dementia was 18.33.When education was not considered and when we usedthe cutoff point of 23/24 recommended for participantsolder than 60 (Anthony et al., 1982), we obtained valuesof 80% sensitivity and 77.5% specificity. When thesample was divided by schooling, acceptable sensitivityand specificity was found only for people with morethan 5 years of education. However, when we used thesame cutoff point for persons with lower education, wefound a considerable reduction in specificity. These resultsare presented in Table 4.Some authors (Mungas et al., 1996) have proposedthe use of different cutoff points depending on the levelof education. Taking this proposal, we again obtainedthe sensitivity and specificity indexes, adjusting thecutoff point according to the performance of the firsttwo subgroups. When we used the average obtained byeach group as the cutoff point (Ms = 17 and 20 for 0Figure 1. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores inthe different age and education groups.Table 4. Sensitivity and Specificity of the MMSE According toEducational Levelyears and 1–4 years of schooling, respectively), we obtained18.18% sensitivity and 90% specificity for thefirst educational group, whereas we found 27.27% sensitivityand 90% specificity for the second group.DiscussionYears of School0–4 5–9 ≥ 10Specificity .50 .86 .87Sensitivity .73 .86 .71Note: MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination (Folstein, Folstein,& McHugh, 1975).Our results showed that the level of schooling plays avery significant role in the MMSE total score. The performanceof individuals with no schooling was as low asthat of participants with severe dementia, whereas thescore for those with 1 to 4 years of schooling was similarto that of participants with mild dementia.The interaction between age and schooling wasmainly noted in participants with no education or limitededucation. The MMSE performance level in thegroup of illiterate persons dropped as age increased,whereas the population with 1 year of schooling ormore did not show significant changes associated withage.With a cutoff point of 23/24, the sensitivity andspecificity were acceptable (80% and 77.5%, respectively),provided that the schooling factor was not included.However, when the sample was broken downinto various schooling levels, a marked decline in thespecificity among persons with no schooling or 1 to 4years of schooling was noted (50%). Although the ad-28

SENSITIVITY & SPECIFICITYjustment of the cutoff point for the population with 0 to4 years of schooling in terms of average performance(17 for the illiterate and 20 for those with 1 to 4 years ofschooling) produced a significant increase in specificity(adequate discrimination of individuals without pathology),sensitivity declined significantly (detectionof individuals with cognitive deterioration). Thus, weconclude that varying the cutoff point is not sufficientto obtain adequate sensitivity and specificity indexesbecause one is favored to the detriment of the other.Recently, Crum et al. (1993) reported the distributionof MMSE scores by age and education in a populationof 18,056 individuals in five U.S. cities (NewHaven, CT; Baltimore; St. Louis, MO; Durham, NC;and Los Angeles). The MMSE scores were related toage and schooling level. They found an inverse relationbetween MMSE scores and age, with a mean of 29 forthose 18 to 24 years of age and 25 for individuals 80years of age. The mean was 29 for individuals withmore than 9 years of schooling, 26 for those with 5 to 8years of schooling, and 22 for those with 0 to 4 years ofschooling. In the Crum et al. study, two changes weremade to the original version. Instead of asking the participantsabout the country they were in, they asked forthe names of two major thoroughfares nearby. To obtaintotal scores, they used the highest score in the answersto successive subtraction items (100 – 7) or thereversed spelling of world. Using the score on theseitems can affect the total grade because each item contributes5 points to the final score. Alterations of thiskind may mean that the results are not comparable withother studies, although these results roughly supportour findings.Our findings coincide with other studies(Bertolucci et al.,1994; Bird et al., 1987; Escobar etal., 1986) that have also reported that the MMSEscore is sensitive to the participant’s schooling leveland cultural background. As in our study, the itemsthat were most sensitive to educational level werethose that involve reading, writing, and calculation,whereas cultural factors affect the answers referring toseasons of the year and the concept of the state. Theconcepts of state may be confusing for someone whois not used to this term.The specificity of the test was particularly lowamong participants with a low schooling level (0–4years) when compared to those with 5 to 9 years ofschooling (50% vs. 86%). This finding has significantimplications for both research and clinical practice.Epidemiological studies that only include the MMSEas a rating instrument will classify normal participantswith low schooling as pathological individuals. Likeother screening scales, the MMSE may be useful inmonitoring changes associated with pharmacologicaltreatment or other types of intervention but not for diagnosispurposes. In clinical practice, it is necessaryto use instruments that permit early detection of cognitivealternations in the diagnosis of dementia symptoms.This detection becomes especially relevant inthe cases of treatable or partially treatable dementia,which require an early diagnosis (Ostrosky-Solís etal., 1996).Another criticism of screening instruments like theMMSE is the high percentage of false negatives, for example,the lack of sensitivity to slight cognitive disorders(Nelson, Fooel, & Faust, 1986). This problem isparticularly apparent in patients with high levels ofpremorbid intelligence. In our sample, the ability to detectparticipants with a dementia diagnosis with 10 ormore years of schooling was 71.43%.In conclusion, the MMSE may be helpful for confirmingthe presence of severe cognitive alterations inparticipants with more than 5 years of schooling, but itshould not be considered for the detection of slight cognitivedeterioration.ReferencesAmerican Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statisticalmanual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Anthony, J. C., LeResche, L., Niaz, U., von Korff, M. R., & Folstein,M. E. (1982). Limits of the “Mini-Mental State” as a screeningtest for dementia and delirium among hospital patients. PsychologicalMedicine, 12, 397–408.Becerra, B., Ortega-Soto, H. A., & Torner, C. (1992). Validez yreproducibilidad del Examen Cognoscitivo Breve (Mini-MentalState Examination) en una unidad de cuidados especiales deun hospital psiquiátrico [Validity and reproducibility of theMini-Mental State Examination in a special care unit of a psychiatrichospital]. Salud Mental, 15(4), 41–45.Bertolucci, P. H. F., Brucki, S., Campacci, S. R., & Juliano, Y.(1994). O Mini-Exame do Estado Mental em uma PopulaçãoGeral: Impacto da scolaridade [Mini-Mental State Examinationin a general population: Effects of education]. Arquivos deNeuropsiquiatria, 52, 1–7.Bird, R. H., Canino, G., Rubio, S. M., & Shrout, P. (1987). Use of theMini-Mental State Examination in a probability sample of aHispanic population. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,175, 731–737.Chatellier, G., & Lancomblez, L. (1990). Tacrine(tetra-H-hidroaminocridine: THA) and lecithin in treatment ofdementia of the Alzheimer’s type: A multicenter study. BritishMedical Journal, 300, 495–499.Crum, R. M., Anthony, J. C., Bassett, S. S., & Folstein, M. F. (1993).Population-based norms for the Mini-Mental State Examinationby age and educational level. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association, 269, 2386–2391.29

OSTROSKY-SOLÍS, LÓPEZ-ARANGO, & ARDILADePaulo, J. R., Folstein, M. F., & Gordon, B. (1980). Psychiatricscreening on a neurological ward. Psychological Medicine, 10,125–132.Dick, J. P., Guiloff, R. J., Stewart, A., Blackstock, J., Bielawska, C.,Paul, E. A., & Marsden, C. D. (1984). Mini-Mental State Examinationin neurological patients. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgeryand Psychiatry, 47, 496–499.Escobar, J. I., Burnam, A., Karno, M., Forsythe, A., Landsverk, J., &Golding, J. M. (1986). Use of the Mini-Mental State Examination(MMSE) in a community population of mixed ethnicity.Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 174, 607–614.Fillenbaum, G., Heyman, A., Willians, K., Prosnitz, B., & Burchett,B. (1990). Sensitivity and specificity of standardized screens ofcognitive impairment and dementia among elderly Blacks andWhite community residents. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,43, 651–660.Finlayson, N. A., Jonhson, K. A., & Reitan, R. M. (1977). Relationof level of education to neuropsychological measures in braindamaged and non-brain damaged adults. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 45, 536–542.Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975).Mini-Mental State: A practical method for grading the cognitivestate of patients for the clinician. Journal of PsychiatricResearch, 12, 189–198.George, L. K., Landerman, R., Blazer, D. G., & Anthony, J. C.(1991). Cognitive impairment. In L. N. Robbins & D. A.Regier (Eds.), Psychiatric disorders at America: Theepidemiologic catchment area study (pp. 237–291). NewYork: Free Press.Gurland, B. J., Wilder, D. E., Cross, P., Teresi, J., & Barrett, V. W.(1992). Screening scales for dementia: Toward reconciliationof conflicting cross-cultural findings. International Journal ofGeriatric Psychiatry, 7, 105–113.Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982). The meaning and use of thearea under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. DiagnosticRadiology, 143, 29–36.Launer, L. J., Dinkgreve, M. A., Jonker, C., Hooijer, C., &Lindeboom, J. (1993). Are age and education independent correlatesof the Mini-Mental State Exam performance of community-dwellingelderly? Journal of Gerontology, 48, 271–277.Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.).New York: Oxford University Press.Li, G., Shen, Y. C., Chen, C. H., Zhao, Y. W., Li, S. R., & Lu, M.(1980). An epidemiological survey of age-related dementia inan urban area of Beijing. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 79,557–563.Morris, H. C., Heyman, A., Mohs, R. C., Hughes, J. P., Van Belle,G., Fillenbaum, G., Mellits, E. D., Clark, C., & Consortium toEstablish a Record of Alzheimer’s Disease Investigators.(1989). The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’sDisease (CERAD): Part 1. Clinical andneuropsychological assessment of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology,39, 1159–1165.Mungas, D., Marshall, S. C., Weldon, M., Haan, M., & Reed, B. R.(1996). Age and education correction of Mini-Mental State Examinationfor English and Spanish-speaking elderly. Neurology,46, 700–706.Murden, R. A., McRae, T. D., Kaner, S., & Bucknam, M. E. (1991).Mini-Mental Status Exam scores with education in Blacks andWhites. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 43,138–145.Nelson, A., Fooel, B. S., & Faust, D. (1986). Bedside cognitivescreening instruments in critical assessment. Journal of Nervousand Mental Disease, 174, 73–83.Ostrosky, F., Canseco, E., Quintanar, L., Navarro, E., & Ardila, A.(1985). Sociocultural effects in neuropsychological assessment.International Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 53–66.Ostrosky, F., Quintanar, L., Canseco, E., Meneses, S., Navarro, E.,& Ardila, A. (1986). Actividad cognoscitiva y nivelsociocultural [Cognitive activity and sociocultural level].Revista de Investigación Clínica, 38, 37–42.Ostrosky-Solís, F., Ardila, A., & Chayo, R. (1996). Rehabilitaciónneuropsicológica [Neuropsychological rehabilitation]. MexicoCity, Mexico: Planeta.Pfeffer, R. J., Kurosaki, T. T., Harrah, C. H., Jr., Chance, J. M.,Bates, D., Detels, R., Filos, S., & Butzke, C. (1981). A surveydiagnostic tool for senile dementia. American Journal of Epidemiology,114, 515–527.Rovner, B. W., Kafonek, S., Filipp, L., & Folstein, M. P. (1990).Prevalence of mental illness in a community nursing home.American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 1446–1449.Srivastav, P. K., Agarwal, K., & Kumar, S. (1989). Effects of educationand sex on some common clinical tests used in mental statusexaminations. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 31, 134–138.Original submission May 28, 1999Accepted September 8, 199930

SENSITIVITY & SPECIFICITYORIENTACIONAppendix:Examen Mental Breve (MMSE)1. Punto para cada una de las respuestas correctas.¿Qué hora es?. .........................( )¿Qué fecha es hoy? .....................( )¿Qué día de la semana es hoy? .............( )¿Qué mes? ............................( )¿Qué año? ............................( )Total 5 puntos ( )¿Cómo se llama este lugar? ...............( )¿En qué rumbo de la ciudad, colonia está? ....( )¿Ciudad? .............................( )¿País? ................................( )¿Norte, sur, poniente, etc? ................( )Total 5 puntos ( )REGISTRORepita el nombre de los 3 objetos que voy a decir,puntúe2ó1siéste es el número correcto que ha repetidoel paciente. Insista hasta que el paciente logre repetir los3 nombres ya que se valorará la EVOCACIÓN. Lápiz.Llave. Libro.Total 3 puntos ( )ATENCIÓN Y CÁLCULOPida al paciente que sustraiga 7 de 100 cinco veces,puntuando una correcta por cada ocasión bien realizada.Total 5 puntos ( )LENGUAJE1 puntos por cada objeto bien nombrado: (reloj, lápiz).Total 2 puntos ( )1 punto si la siguiente oración es repetidacorrectamente.“NO IRÉ, SI TU NO LLEGAS TEMPRANO”Total 1 punto ( )1 punto por las 3 órdenes bien ejecutadas“Con el dedo derecho, toque la punta de su nariz yluego su oído izquierdo o tome este pedazo de papelcon su mano derecha, dóblelo y tírelo al suelo”Total 3 puntos ( )LECTURA1 punto por obedecer la orden escrita: “CIERRE SUSOJOS”Total 1 punto ( )ESCRITURA1 punto por escribir una oración que incluya verbo ysujeto y tenga sentido.Total 1 punto ( )DIBUJO1 punto por la copia de 2 pentágonos (2 cm cada lado)interceptados.Total 1 punto ( )EVOCACIÓNPida al paciente que repita las 3 palabras que se le dijo. 1punto por cada palabra correcta.Total 3 puntos ( )PUNTUACIÓN OBTENIDA _______31