The Memory and Aging Telephone Screen: Development and preliminary validation

Abstract

Background-Telephone interviews are widely used in geriatric settings to identify eligible research participants and to perform brief follow-up assessments of cognition. This article reports on the development and validation of the Memory and Aging Telephone Screen (MATS), a structured interview for older adults with mild cognitive impairment and/or significant memory complaints. We also developed three alternate forms of the MATS objective memory test to reduce practice effects engendered by multiple administrations.Methods-Participants were enrolled in a longitudinal study that included 120 older adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI), subjective cognitive complaints (CC) but without deficit on neuropsychological tests, and demographically-matched healthy controls (HC). An additional 15 patients with mild probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) completed the alternative forms study. All participants received the original MATS version, and a subset (n = 90) later received two of three alternate forms.Results-The MATS was sensitive to group differences and the alternate forms were equivalent. MATS objective memory test scores showed adequate stability over one year and were moderately correlated with scores on a widely used list-learning test (CVLT-II).Conclusions-The MATS, a repeatable telephone screen that includes objective and subjective memory assessments, is useful for detecting individuals in the preclinical and early stages of dementia. Results encourage use of the MATS as a reliable and valid cognitive screening tool in research and clinical settings. Longitudinal assessments are being performed to investigate the predictive validity of the MATS for cognitive progression in MCI.

Cholinergic Enhancement of Brain Activation in Mild Cognitive Impairment during Episodic Memory Encoding

“…In addition, both the participant and an informant were given measures to assess cognitive complaints, which are detailed in a previous report (40). These include a Memory Assessment Questionnaire (40), which is adapted in part from the Functional Activities Questionnaire (44), the Memory Self-Rating Questionnaire (45), the self and informant versions of the Neurobehavioral Function and ADL Rating Scale (46), self and informant versions of the Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (47), four cognitive items from the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) (48), and 10 cognitive items from a telephone-based screening for MCI (49). A cognitive complaint index (CCI) was calculated as the percentage of all items endorsed as a complaint for each participant and his or her informant independently, as well as across all metrics (self and informant) (40).…”

Monitoring Cognitive Functioning

“…These batteries, often derived from the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE, Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975) have been used successfully to test adults with a focus on screening for cognitive impairment. Such instruments, including the Brief Screen for Cognition Impairment (Hill et al, 2005), the Memory and Aging Telephone Screen (Rabin et al, 2007), or the Telephone Cognitive Assessment Battery (Debanne et al, 1997) do not typically provide a comprehensive assessment of cognitive domains (see Lachman & Tun, 2008; Martin-Khan, Wootton, & Gray, 2010; Soubelet & Salthouse, 2011; Wolfson et al, 2009, for reviews) and are not sensitive enough to variations in cognitive abilities across adulthood (Wolfson et al, 2009). Due to ceiling effects and limited variance they cannot typically discriminate among those with mild deficits or those in the normal range of functioning especially when comparing adults of different ages.…”

Subjective Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: An Overview of Self-Report Measures Used Across 19 International Research Studies

“…Other dimensions on which self-report measures vary are item content and complexity including whether items relate to memory exclusively [57, 60–62] or include additional cognitive domains [50, 63, 64] or non-cognitive items [51, 55, 65], whether items tap current cognitive ability or disability/impairment [65–67] versus intraindividual change [57, 68], and whether items inquire about general versus specific aspects of cognition. In terms of the origin of instruments, while some studies use complete published questionnaires [54–60, 65], others use groups of items from existing measures [69–71] or develop new items for a specific study [12, 72–77].…”