Home › Research › Risk factors
A hindi version of the MMSE: The development of a cognitive screening instrument for a largely illiterate rural elderly population in india
Mary Ganguli, Graham G. Ratcliff, Vijay Chandra, Sujatha D. Sharma, Joanne E. Gilby, Rajesh S. Pandav, Steven H. Belle, Christopher M. Ryan et al.. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 1995-05-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
The Indo‐US Cross‐National Dementia Epidemiology Study seeks to compare two rural populations, in the US and India: the Monongahela Valley, a rural community of relatively low socioeconomic status in southwestern Pennsylvania (USA), and Ballabgarh, a rural community near New Delhi in North India. Of Particular interest is the fact that the Ballabgarh elderly population is exclusively Hindi‐speaking, has little or no education and is largely illiterate, rendering its cognitive screening a particular challenge. In this article we report methods and preliminary data on the development of a Hindi cognitive screening instrument suitable for the Ballabgarh elderly population. We use as an example our Hindi adaptation of the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE), a widely used global cognitive screening scale. Systematic, item‐by‐item, empirically based test development has shown that effective modifications can be made to existing tests that require reading and writing; and that culturally sensitive modifications can be made to render the test meaningful and relevant while still tapping the appropriate cognitive domains. Certain cognitive functions, particularly orientation to time, remain difficult to test adequately in this type of population. In Ballabgarh, as in the Monongahela Valley, educated individuals obtain higher test scores. Implications for dementia screening are discussed, including those relevant to the hypothesis that low education predisposes to dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Ganguli, M., Ratcliff, G. G., Chandra, V., Sharma, S. D., Gilby, J. E., Pandav, R. S., et al. (1995). A hindi version of the MMSE: The development of a cognitive screening instrument for a largely illiterate rural elderly population in india. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.930100505
Vancouver
Ganguli M, Ratcliff GG, Chandra V, Sharma SD, Gilby JE, Pandav RS, et al. A hindi version of the MMSE: The development of a cognitive screening instrument for a largely illiterate rural elderly population in india. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 1995. doi:10.1002/gps.930100505.
BibTeX
@article{ganguli1995-e25db518,
author = {Ganguli, Mary and Ratcliff, Graham G. and Chandra, Vijay and Sharma, Sujatha D. and Gilby, Joanne E. and Pandav, Rajesh S. and Belle, Steven H. and Ryan, Christopher M. and others},
title = {{A hindi version of the MMSE: The development of a cognitive screening instrument for a largely illiterate rural elderly population in india}},
journal = {International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry},
year = {1995},
doi = {10.1002/gps.930100505},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.930100505}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Systematic, item‐by‐item, empirically based test development has shown that effective modifications can be made to existing tests that require reading and writing; and that culturally sensitive modifications can be made to render the test meaningful and relevant while still tapping the appropriate cognitive domains.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 34/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 20 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 34 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 1995 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 20 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 20 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 34 out of 100. |
| Total | 34 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “reserve”
208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.