Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2005;63(2-B):416-421

VALIDATION OF THE BRAZILIAN

VERSION OF MINI-TEST CASI-S
Alfredo Damasceno1, Adriane M. Delicio1, Daniel F.C. Mazo1, João F.D. Zullo1,
Patricia Scherer1, Ronny T.Y. Ng1, Benito P. Damasceno2

ABSTRACT - Objective:To determine CASI-S accuracy in the diagnosis of dementia. M e t h o d: The Cognitive
Abilities Screening Instrument - Short Form (CASI-S) was applied in 43 Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients
and 74 normal controls. AD diagnosis was based on DSM-IV, NINCDS-ADRDA, and CAMDEX. CASI-S includes:
registration, temporal orientation, verbal fluency (4-legged animals in 30s), and recall (3 words). Its max-
imum score is 33 points. A copy of 2 pentagons was added. Results: ROC curve showed an accuracy of
0.87, with standard error of 0.032, and 95% confidence intervall between 0.795 and 0.925. The cut-off score
for cognitive deficit was 23, with sensitivity of 76.7%, specificity 86.5%, positive likelihood ratio (LR) 5.68,
and negative LR 0.27. The cut-off score for subjects 70 years or older was 20, with sensitivity of 71.4% and
specificity 97.1%. Conclusion:CASI-S is a practical test, with high specificity, particularly in individuals above
70 years of age. The adding of the drawing test did not improve its accuracy.
KEY WORDS: CASI-S, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, education.

Validação da versão brasileira do mini-teste CASI-S

RESUMO - Objetivo: Determinar a acurácia do CASI-S no diagnóstico de demência. Método: O CASI-S (Cogniti-
ve Abilities Screening Instrument - Short Form) foi aplicado em 43 pacientes com doença de Alzheimer (DA)
e 74 controles normais. O diagnóstico de DA baseou-se no DSM-IV, NINCDS-ADRDA e CAMDEX. O CASI-S
inclui: re g i s t ro, orientação temporal, fluência verbal (animais quadrúpedes em 30s), e evocação (3 palavras).
O escore máximo é 33 pontos. Foi adicionado um teste de cópia de 2 pentágonos. Resultados: A curva ROC
mostrou acurácia de 0,87, com erro padrão de 0,032, e intervalo de confiança de 95% entre 0,795 e 0,925.
O ponto de corte para déficit cognitivo foi 23 pontos, com sensibilidade de 76,7%, especificidade de 86,5%,
valor preditivo (VP) positivo de 5,68, e VP negativo de 0,27. Para sujeitos com 70 anos ou mais, o ponto de
corte foi 20, com sensibilidade de 71,4% e especificidade de 97,1%. Conclusão: O CASI-S é um teste práti-
co, com alta especificidade, particularmente em indivíduos com idade acima de 70 anos. O teste de cópia
dos pentágonos não melhorou sua acurácia.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: CASI-S, demência, doença de Alzheimer, educação.

Mental changes in normal and pathological aging, separate cognitive domains can provide profiles of
particularly in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), are becom- performance that may help distinguish different
ing a serious public health problem as the old pop- forms of dementia, as well as monitor disease pro-
ulation increases, and they should be detected as gression and treatment effects. However, in clini-
early as possible for the treatment to be success- cal practice, as well as in epidemiological studies, it
ful. The diagnosis of AD is based, first and foremost, is not feasible to submit every patient with suspect-
on the finding of cognitive and behavioral changes ed dementia to a thorough, stressful, and expensi-
compatible with a dementia syndrome. In the mild ve investigation. So, after the interview and neuro-
stages of AD, when the complaints are scanty, the logical examination, we often begin with a cogni-
diagnosis of this syndrome is often attained only tive screening test as the Mini-Mental State Exami-
by gathering more cognitive changes by means of nation1, Blessed Orientation-Memory-Concentra-
a neuropsychological test battery. Such a compre- tion test (BOMC)2; or, for transcultural epidemiologi-
hensive battery of tests with a range of scores for cal studies of dementia, The Cognitive Abilities Scre-

Unit of Neuropsychology and Neurolinguistics, Department of Neurology, Medical School, State University of Campinas (UNICAMP)
Campinas SP Brazil: 1Medical student; 2MD, Associate Professor of Neurology: This research was supported by FAPESP (Fundação
de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) grants 99/05287-7, 99/05288-3, 99/05289-0, 99/05290-8, and 99/05291-4.
Received 25 August 2004, received in final form 13 December 2004. Accepted 15 February 2005
Dr. Benito P. Damasceno - Department of Neurology, Medical School, UNICAMP / Box 6111 - 13083-970 Campinas SP - Brasil. E-mail:
[email protected]
 Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2005;63(2-B) 417

ening Instrument (CASI), or its shortened version ly spouses and consorts of the patients. Exclusion crite-
(CASI-S), introduced by Teng et al.3,4. ria for normal volunteers were history or evidence of neu-
CASI complete form (CASI-C) provides quantita- rological or psychiatric disease, head trauma with loss
tive assessment (scoring from 0 to 100) of attention, of consciousness exceeding 30 min, alcoholism or chron-
concentration, orientation, short-term memory, long- ic occupational exposure to neurotoxic substances, and
c u rrent use of medication likely to affect cognitive func-
term memory, language abilities, visual construction
tions. All subjects gave their informed consent to parti-
(copying two intersecting pentagons), list-generat-
cipate, in accordance with the rules of our Medical School
ing fluency, abstraction, and judgment. Its short form
Ethics Committee.
(CASI-S) covers the ability to repeat (register) thre e
words and to recall them after an interval during Procedures – All subjects underwent medical history,
which tests of temporal orientation and verbal flu- physical and neurological examination, and evaluation
ency are perf o rmed. Recently, CASI-C effectiveness with The Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument - Short
in screening dementia has been improved by the use F o rm(CASI-S)3. Testing took place at morning times in a
of an alternative scoring system (i.e., a weighted sum quiet room of the hospital’s Neuropsychology Unit.
of the scores from the 9 cognitive domains)5. In this CASI-S comprises following subtests: registration [ re-
study, short-term memory (delayed recall of 3 word s peating three words: shirt, brown, honesty (altern a t i v e-
or 5 objects) and orientation appeared to be the two ly: shoes, black, modesty; or socks, blue, charity); score 0
most relevant domains and their combined score was to 3]; temporal orientation with graded scoring accord-
ing to the closeness of the response to the correct answer
shown to be more effective than the total score in
(to year: 0-4; to month and date: 0-5; to week-day: 0-1;
screening dementia.
and to the time of day, allowing 59 minutes error: 0-1);
CASI-S sensitivity and specificity are similar to verbal fluency (category: four-legged animals, scoring
those of the complete form3. In a comparison study the number of correct answers in 30 seconds, up to 10);
of CASI-S with MMSE and BOMC, using The Clinical and recall ( remembering three words): spontaneous re-
Dementia Rating Scale (CDR)6 as an independent call of each correct word got score 3; recall after catego-
indicator of dementia, all three tests had compa- ry cueing (e.g., “something to wear”), score 2; recall after
rably high inter-examiner and test-retest reliabili- provided three choices (e.g., “shoes, shirt, socks”), score
ties, and comparably high associations with the CDR 1; and if still incorrect answer, score 0. CASI-S maximum
scores4. CASI-S subtests of register, recall, and ori- score is 33 points. In our version of this test (which can
entation, derived from MMSE and BOMC, are the be obtained from the corresponding author by e-mail re-
quest), the question “What season are we in?” was sub-
most predictive items found in other test batteri-
stituted for “What time is it?”, because in Brazil there a re
es4,7. There f o re, some authors8 question the contri-
no marked differences between the seasons. A test of cons-
bution of the other MMSE subtests in a quick eval-
tructional praxis was added [copy of two intersecting pen-
uation of dementia. Compared to MMSE, CASI-S tagons (MMSE subtest) or, for illiterate subjects, reproduc-
has been considered as easier and quicker to admin- tion of two pentagons bound by one of their sides using
ister, and more appropriate for illiterate people, matches; score 1 if correctly copied].
which constitute 15% of patients who seek our uni- Diagnosis of dementia was based on DSM-IV crite-
versity hospital. ria10, as well as on NINCDS-ADRDA11 for Alzheimer’s dis-
The aim of this study was (1) to verify CASI-S po- ease, and CAMDEX (Cambridge Mental Disorders of the
wer in the screening of dementia syndrome, by de- Elderly Examination)12 to grade dementia and differentia-
termining its sensitivity, specificity, positive and ne- te it from depression. Computed tomography (CT), mag-
gative likelihood ratios, and cutoff points in a sam- netic resonance imaging (MRI), cerebral blood flow ima-
ging (SPECT tomography using technetium-99m-HMPAO),
ple of the Brazilian population comprising patients
electroencephalography, cerebrospinal fluid analysis, and
with AD and controls; and (2) to verify if the addi-
relevant laboratory blood tests were done to discard oth-
tion of MMSE drawing test (copy of two intersect-
er causes of dementia. Evaluation of control subjects con-
ing pentagons) can improve CASI-S accuracy, since sisted only of interview, physical-neurological examina-
praxic-constructive tests are considered as good pre- tion, and cognitive testing. Diagnosis of probable AD was
dictors of cognitive deficit9. done by a senior neurologist (BPD), and the cognitive tes-
ting by the other authors, which as much as possible were
METHOD blind to the diagnosis.
Subjects – This study included subjects aged 40 to 95 Statistical analysis were performed with SAS System
years, even illiterate ones, comprising patients with Al- for Windows, version 8.2 (SAS Institute Inc.)13. We used
z h e i m e r’s disease attended at our university hospital the Chi-Square test for gender proportion, and Mann-
and normal volunteers from the community, part i c u l a r- Whitney U test to compare both groups (demented and
418 Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2005;63(2-B)

controls) as regards age, education, and performance hand, when the four age groups are compared with
on cognitive tests. One way ANOVA and post hoc a n a l y- each other by means of one way ANOVA, they show
sis with Tukey test were used for comparison of multiple no difference in performance on CASI-S [F (3, 168)
sample means. Pearson correlation coefficient, and re- = 1.36, p = 0.2559].
gression analysis were applied where appropriate. Sig- Educational level was highly correlated to CASI-
nificance level was 5% (two-tailed). CASI-S overall diag- S total scores in the whole group of 172 normal v o-
nostic accuracy was calculated through receiver operat-
lunteers (Spearman correlation coefficient; r = 0.3016,
ing characteristics (ROC) analysis, which provides inform a-
p = 0.00005). One way ANOVA and post hoc a n a l y-
tion relevant to the full range of scores that should be tak-
sis with Tukey tests also revealed significant diff e r-
en into account in making a decision about a cutting point
for discriminating the presence or absence of disease14.
ences between the five schooling groups on CASI-
S [F (4, 167) = 3.5265, p = 0.008], on account of the
illiterate in comparison to the other groups (secon-
RESULTS
d a ry: p = 0.003; high school: p = 0.02; and universi-
CASI-S was applied in 172 normal volunteers (95
ty group: p = 0.003), but not in comparison to ele-
men, 77 women), whose age ranged from 40 to 88
mentary school group (p = 0.06).
years (mean 59 ± 12 years), and schooling from 0
The effect of educational level on CASI-S sub-
to 20 years (median 4 years; mean 5 ± 4 years). Mean
tests was seen only in the recall task [F (4, 167) =
of 5 (± 2) minutes was spent in the application of
5.5597, p = 0.0003], which may be explained by the
the test. In the analysis of the data, all controls were
divided into four age groups: Group 1 (from 40 to poor performance of the illiterate in comparison
49 years), Group 2 (50 to 59 years), Group 3 (60 to to the other schooling groups (elementary: p = 0.008;
69 years), and Group 4 (≥70 years). They were also secondary: p = 0.0002; high school: p = 0.01; and
classified into five schooling groups: (1) illiterate, university: p = 0.0001). All groups showed similar
(2) elementary school (from 1 to 4 years), (3) sec- performance on registration (only two of 172 sub-
ondary school (5 to 8 years), (4) high school (9 to jects missed one of the three points of the test),
11 years), and (5) university (≥12 years) (Table 1). orientation [F (4, 167) = 0.4032, p = 0.80] and ver-
In the whole group of 172 subjects there was a bal fluency [F (4, 167) = 0.6344, p = 0.63]. Another
slight negative correlation between age and CASI- significant diff e rence was found between elemen-
S scores (Spearman correlation coefficient; r = - tary school and university groups both on recall test
0.1813, p < 0.05), which is explained by the high- (p = 0.01) and CASI-S total (p = 0.03). As re g a rds the
er educational level of Group 1 subjects as compa- additional test of constructional praxis, ANOVA re-
red to Group 2 (p = 0.02), Group 3 (p = 0.0005) and vealed significant interg roup differences [F (4, 167)
G roup 4 (p = 0.01; Mann-Whitney U test). This cor- = 3.4651, p = 0.009], on account of the illiterate in
relation disappears when the statistical analysis comparison to the other schooling groups (secon-
excludes Group 1 and takes into account only the dary: p = 0.01; high school: p = 0.003; university:
other three age groups (from 50 to 88 years), whi- p = 0.004), but without significant diff e rence com-
ch have similar educational levels. On the other pared to elementary school group (p = 0.09).

Table 1. Age, educational level and CASI-S scores in 172 normal volunteers.

N Mean CASI-S Standard Median Minimum score Maximum

score deviation score score

All controls 172 28.71 3.51 29 19 33

Age (years)
Group 1 (40-49) 38 29.31 3.44 29.5 20 33
Group 2 (50-59) 49 29.18 3.17 29 19 33
Group 3 (60-69) 50 28.16 3.61 28.5 19 33
Group 4 (≥70) 35 28.17 3.83 28 20 33
Education (years)
Illiterate 10 26.10 3.90 26.5 19 33
Elementary (1-4) 102 28.36 3.68 29 19 33
Secondary (5-8) 30 29.70 2.75 30 24 33
High school (9-11) 12 29.33 2.10 29 25 32
University (≥12) 18 30.33 2.82 31 22 33
 Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2005;63(2-B) 419

Table 2. Demographics of 43 patients with Alzheimer’s disease and 74 con -

trol subjects.

Controls Alzheimer’s disease P

(N = 74) (N = 43)

Men/women 28/46 16/27 0.946

Age (years) 67 ± 9 70 ± 10 0.103
Education (years) 5±4 7±5 0.055
Illiterate 6 2 0.475

Table 3. Scores on the cognitive subtests for dementia and control groups.

Test parameters Dementia patients Control subjects p

Mean±SD (range) Mean±SD (range)

Registration 2.58 ± 0.95 (0-3) 3 ± 0 (3-3) 0.0001

Time orientation 6 ± 4 (0-11) 10 ± 1 (6-11) < 0.0001
Verbal fluency 4 ± 3 (0-10) 8 ± 2 (1-10) < 0.0001
Recall 3 ± 3 (0-9) 7 ± 2 (1-9) < 0.0001
CASI-S total 16 ± 10 (0-33) 28 ± 4 (19-33) < 0.0001
CASI-S total + praxis 16 ± 10 (0-34) 29 ± 4 (19-34) < 0.0001

Table 4. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LR) according to the differ -
ent cut-off points of CASI-S.

Cut-off Sensitivity Specificity Positive LR Negative LR

≤15 46.5 100 - 0.53

≤16 51.2 100 - 0.49
≤17 53.5 100 - 0.47
≤18 58.1 100 - 0.42
≤19 65.1 95.9 16.06 0.36
≤20 69.8 93.2 10.33 0.32
≤21 72.1 89.2 6.67 0.31
≤22 74.4 86.5 5.51 0.30
≤23 76.7 86.5 5.68 0.27
≤24 76.7 82.4 4.37 0.28
≤25 76.7 75.7 3.16 0.31
≤26 76.7 73.0 2.84 0.32
≤27 81.4 64.9 2.32 0.29
≤28 88.4 54.1 1.92 0.22
≤29 95.3 41.9 1.64 0.11
≤30 95.3 37.8 1.53 0.12
≤31 97.7 20.3 1.23 0.11
≤32 97.7 8.1 1.06 0.29

We also studied 43 patients with AD and 74 con- tia group, but not statistically significant (p = 0.055;
t rols (chosen randomly among the 172 normal vol- Mann-Whitney U test). Ten controls and two patients
unteers), which were matched with the patients for with dementia were illiterate (χ2 = 2.32, df = 1, p
age (with variation of 5 years) and education (with = 0.127). Dementia patients had lower scores on all
variation of 2 years) (see Table 2 for demographi c s ) . cognitive subtests, as determined by Mann-Whitney
Both groups had similar gender proportion (Chi- U test (Table 3).
S q u a re test) and mean age (Mann-Whitney U test). The dementia was mild in 26, moderate in 7, and
Educational level was slightly higher in the demen- severe in 10 patients. As regards their CASI-S total
420 Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2005;63(2-B)

gative LR 0.29. Among these subjects, the accura-

cy was 89.2%, with standard error 0.041, and 95%
confidence intervall between 0.789 and 0.956.
With addition of the drawing test, CASI-S accura-
cy is virtually identical (sensititivy of 76.7%, speci-
ficity of 86.5%, positive LR of 5.68, and negative LR
of 0.27), but among subjects aged 70 years or abo-
ve, the specificity increased to 100%, while the sen-
sitivity decreased to 67.9%. CASI-S subtests of re g i s-
tration, orientation, verbal fluency, and recall could
distinguish patients from controls (p≤0.0001), and
they showed high negative correlation with the
degree of cognitive deterioration.

DISCUSSION
As shown by the performance of 172 normal vol-
unteers, CASI-S scores were highly correlated to the
educacional level, but hardly to age. The slight c o r-
Fig 1. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for CASI-S in
relation to age was explained by the higher educa-
the prediction of dementia.
tion of the youngest age group (from 40 to 49 years),
and it disappears when this group is excluded fro m
the analysis. This secondary effect of education has
s c o res, patients with mild degrees of dementia had been shown in other Brazilian validation studies of
median score of 19, and mean of 20.5 (SD = 6.7; range: cognitive screening tests, as for the MMSE15-17 and
11-33); those with moderate degrees had median of Mattis Dementia Rating Scale18.
9, and mean of 16.5 (SD = 9.3; range: 6-28); and tho-
The effect of education was seen only in the re-
se with severe degrees, median of 1.5, and mean of
call subtest, on account of the poor performance
2.4 (SD = 2.3; range: 0-8). ANOVA revealed signifi-
of the illiterate as compared to the other scholing
cant differences between these three groups [F (2,
g roups. The other subtests, as the shortened CASI-
40) = 27.8439, p = 0.0001], on account of those with
S version of verbal fluency task, were not influenced
severe as compared to those with mild (p = 0.0001)
by education, in disagreement with what has been
and moderate (p = 0.0005) dementia. The differences
reported for the longer (1 minute) version of this
between those with mild and moderate dementia
task19,20. It is well known that individuals with low
were not statistically significant (p = 0.2138).
education usually have difficulties with metacogni-
CASI-S accuracy, given by the area under the ROC
tive tests, as with the decontextualized task of re-
curve (Fig 1), was 0.87 (i.e., 87%), with standard
peating and recalling three words. Formal educa-
error of 0.032, and 95% confidence intervall bet-
tion might influence this kind of task by training
ween 0.795 and 0.925. Table 4 shows the sensitivi-
individuals in efficient learning and retrieval strate-
ty, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), and ne-
gies21. This effect tends to be slight or to disappear
gative LR for different CASI-S cut-off points. The
when the educational level of the sample is high,
sensitivity increased gradually from 51% to 100%
as shown in a Swedish population-based study of
when the CASI-S cut-off point went from 16/15 to
MMSE accuracy22. However, as noticed by Teng et
33/32, while the specificity showed the opposite
al.3, it is unrealistic to expect that the influence of
pattern with an accelerating decrease after the cut-
education can be fully eliminated in dementia s c re-
off 26/25. The cut-off point chosen for diagnosis of
ening tests.
cognitive deficit was 24/23 (i.e., ≤ 23), with which
sensititivy is 76.7%, specificity 86.5%, positive LR 5.68, All CASI-S subtests could discriminate very well
and negative LR 0.27. Thirty-three demented and between dementia patients and controls. Obviously,
10 controls scored below this point. this doesnot mean that these subtests can differ-
Cut-off point for subjects with age equal to or entiate between AD and other causes of cognitive
above 70 years (comprising 28 demented and 35 c o n- deficit. In the sample we studied, CASI-S diagnos-
trols) was 21/20 (i.e., ≤20), with which sensitivity tic accuracy was good, particularly as regards its s p e-
is 71.4%, specificity 97.1%, positive LR 25, and ne- cificity (97.1%) among subjects aged 70 years or
 Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2005;63(2-B) 421

above. However, for the chosen cut-off point (24/23), the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument, Chinese version. Dement
Geriatr Cogn Disord 2004;18:314-320.
the sensitivity (76.7%) and specificity (86.5%) were 6. Morris JC. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and
lower than those found by Teng et al.23 in an epi- scoring rules. Neurology 1993;43:2412-2414.
7. Magaziner J, Basset SS, Hebel JR. Predicting performance on the Mini-
demiological study of 219 subjects with dementia Mental State Examination. J Amer Geriatrics Soc 1987;35:996-1000.
and 5712 normal controls. Plausible explanations 8. Fillenbaum GG, Heyman A, Wilkinson WE, Haynes CS. Comparison of
for this discrepancy may be that our study is hospi- two screening tests in Alzheimer’s disease. Arch Neurol 1987;44:924-927.
9. Jacobs DM, Sano M, Dooneief G, Marder K, Bell KL, Stern Y. Neuro-
tal-based, our sample size is smaller, and our demen- psychological detection and characterization of preclinical Alzheimer’s
tia patients had slightly higher education than disesase. Neurology 1995;45:957-962.
10. American Psychiatric Association: diagnostic and statistical manual of men-
controls (though not statistically significant). tal disorders 4. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
CASI-S accuracy was not improved by the addi- 11. McKahnn G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan EM.
Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADR-
tion of the drawing test, even though its specificity DA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Hu-
was lifted up to 100% among subjects aged 70 years man Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1984; 34:
939-944.
or above (but with decrease of its sensitivity and in- 12. Roth M, Huppert FH, Tym E, Mountjoy CQ. CAMDEX: The Cambridge
crease of evaluation time). Moreover, this task was Examination for Mental Disorders of the Elderly. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ Press, 1988.
highly difficult for subjects with low education. Thus, 13. SAS System for Windows, version 8.2. [Computer software]. (1999-2001).
its addition to CASI-S seems to be of no benefit. Cary, NC (USA): SAS Institute Inc.
14. Murphy JM, Berwick DM, Weinstein MC, Borus JF, Budman SH, Kler-
In conclusion, CASI-S is relatively easy and quick man GL. Performance of screening and diagnostic tests: Application
to apply, and differently from MMSE or BOMC, it has of receiver operating characteristics analysis. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1987;
44:550-555.
a graded scoring of responses allowing a wider cov- 15. Bertolucci PHF, Brucki SMD, Campacci R, Juliano Y. O Mini-Exame do
erage of difficulty levels, being fitted for differe n t i a- Estado Mental em uma população geral: impacto da escolaridade. Arq
Neuropsiquiatr 1994;52:1-7.
ting among nondemented persons or among patients 16. Engelhardt E, Laks J, Marinho VM, Rozenthal M, Quitério T. Triagem
in advanced stages dementia. Although it does not cognitiva em idosos normais: a importância do binômio idade/escola-
ridade. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2002; 60(Suppl 1):S208.
require reading, writing, drawing, or arithmetic cal-
17. Brucki SMD, Nitrini R, Caramelli P, Bertolucci PHF, Okamoto IH. Su-
culation, it includes metacognitive tasks, for this re- gestões para o uso do Mini-Exame do Estado Mental no Brasil. Arq
ason being influenced by schooling. Larger samples Neuropsiquiatr 2003;61:777-781.
18. Porto CS, Fichman HC, Caramelli P, Bahia VS, Nitrini R. Brazilian ver-
of patients and controls are needed to more reliably sion of the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale: diagnosis of mild dementia
establish the tests discriminative power. in Alzheimer’s disease. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2003;61:339-345.
19. Kempler D, Teng EL, Dick M, Taussig IM, Davis DS. The effects of age,
education, and ethnicity on verbal fluency. J Int Neuropsychol Soc
REFERENCES 1998;4:531-538.
1. Folstein MF, Folstein SF, McHugh PR: Mini-Mental State. A practical 20. Caramelli P, Carthery MT, Porto CS, Fichman HC, Bahia VS, Nitrini
method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J R.Verbal fluency test in the diagnosis of mild Alzheimer’s disease: cut-
Psychiatric Res 1975;12:189-198. off scores in relation to educational level. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2003;61
2. Katzman R, Brown T, Fuld P, Peck A, Schechter R, Schimmel H. Vali- (Suppl 2):S71.
dation of a short orientation-memory-concentration test of cognitive 21. Folia V, Kosmidis MH. Assessment of memory skills in illiterates: strat-
impairment. Am J Psychiatry 1983;140:734-739. egy differences or test artifact? Clin Neuropsychol 2003;17:143-152.
3. Teng EL, Hasegawa K, Homma A, et al. The Cognitive Abilities Screening 22. Fratiglioni GM,Viitanen M, Winblad B. Accuracy of the Mini-Mental
Instrument (CASI): a practical test for cross-cultural epidemiological Status Examination as a screening test for dementia in a Swedish elde-
studies of dementia. Int Psychogeriatrics 1994;6:45-58. rly population. Acta Neurol Scand 1993;87:312-317.
4. Teng EL, Riesenberg LA, Hall NK, Brozovic B, Ivan LM. Comparisons 23. Teng EL, Larson EB, Lin KN, Graves AB, Liu HC. Screening for demen-
among three screening tests for dementia. Clin Neuropsychol 1997; tia: the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument - Short Version (CASI-
11:307-308. Short). Presentation at the Annual Convention of the American Psy-
5. Tsai RC, Lin KN, Wu KY, Liu HC. Improving the screening power of chological Association San Francisco, 1998.