ArticleBrain and behavior2026
Translation and Validation of the Thai Version of the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status and the Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Older Adults.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to translate and validate the telephone interview for cognitive status (TICS) and the mini montreal cognitive assessment (Mini MoCA) for use in older Thai adults and to compare their diagnostic validity for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 149 participants-51 cognitively normal (CN), 49 with MCI, and 49 with dementia-were enrolled. Diagnoses were based on DSM-5 criteria and the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), determined by a senior geriatric neurologist. Participants also completed the MMSE-2, MoCA, NPI-Q, and ADL assessments, administered by certified psychologists and a geriatric nurse. The TICS and Mini MoCA were administered by two independent, blinded clinicians within four weeks of the initial evaluation. Test-retest reliability was assessed after two weeks. Validity and reliability analyses included content and construct validity, and inter-rater/test-retest reliability.
resultsMean age and education were comparable across groups. Both TICS and Mini MoCA scores correlated significantly with standard cognitive and functional measures. Test-retest and inter-rater reliability were excellent (ICC = 0.933 and 0.995 for TICS; 0.918 and 0.998 for Mini MoCA). For discriminating CN from dementia, sensitivity/specificity were 81.3%/81.2% (AUC = 0.883) for TICS and 87.5%/89.6% (AUC = 0.958) for Mini MoCA. For CN vs. MCI, Mini MoCA (AUC = 0.755) performed slightly better than TICS (AUC = 0.693). Average administration times were 8.7 and 4.4 min, respectively.
conclusionsTICS and Mini MoCA are valid, reliable tools for cognitive screening in older Thai adults, with Mini MoCA showing slightly superior performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.