Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Converting short cognitive screen scores: Comparing the Quick mild cognitive impairment screen, Montreal cognitive assessment, and Mini-mental state examination
Rónán Ó’Caoimh, Eleanor Marks, Mark R. O’Donovan. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease Reports, 2026-04-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Q mci ) screen is a short cognitive screening instrument developed to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI). No conversion tables exist between the Q mci screen and commonly-used instruments such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) or Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), limiting comparability across settings and studies. Objective To create bidirectional conversion tables between the Q mci screen, MMSE, and MoCA in a memory clinic cohort. Methods A secondary analysis of data from 551 older adults attending a single-center Irish university-hospital memory clinic (2012–2014) was performed. Participants were classified as normal (n = 101), subjective cognitive disorder (n = 73), MCI (n = 103), and dementia (n = 274). Q mci screen, MMSE, and MoCA scores were available for all participants. Equipercentile equating with log-linear smoothing generated score equivalencies and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between instruments. Results The Q mci screen demonstrated a broader scoring range and greater sensitivity in the mid-range of cognitive performance than either the MMSE or MoCA. Conversion tables revealed a non-linear relationship between instruments, with ceiling effects observed for the MMSE and MoCA. At established cut-offs, an MMSE score of 24/30 equated to a Q mci screen score of 42/100, while a MoCA score of 26/30 corresponded to a Q mci screen score of 71/100 (95% CI: 68–74). Bidirectional tables allow translation of scores across tools. Conclusions This study provides validated conversion tables between the Q mci screen and two widely-used cognitive instruments, to support the use of the Q mci screen in research (facilitating cross-instrument comparability and harmonization across studies), and clinical settings (determining eligibility for disease-modifying therapies).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Ó’Caoimh, R., Marks, E., & O’Donovan, M. R. (2026). Converting short cognitive screen scores: Comparing the Quick mild cognitive impairment screen, Montreal cognitive assessment, and Mini-mental state examination. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease Reports. https://doi.org/10.1177/25424823261441514
Vancouver
Ó’Caoimh R, Marks E, O’Donovan MR. Converting short cognitive screen scores: Comparing the Quick mild cognitive impairment screen, Montreal cognitive assessment, and Mini-mental state examination. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease Reports. 2026. doi:10.1177/25424823261441514.
BibTeX
@article{ocaoimh2026-58bdbb81,
author = {Ó’Caoimh, Rónán and Marks, Eleanor and O’Donovan, Mark R.},
title = {{Converting short cognitive screen scores: Comparing the Quick mild cognitive impairment screen, Montreal cognitive assessment, and Mini-mental state examination}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer s Disease Reports},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1177/25424823261441514},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/25424823261441514}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results The Q mci screen demonstrated a broader scoring range and greater sensitivity in the mid-range of cognitive performance than either the MMSE or MoCA.
- Conversion tables revealed a non-linear relationship between instruments, with ceiling effects observed for the MMSE and MoCA.
Why it matters
This study created conversion tables between the Q mci screen, MMSE, and MoCA to allow score comparability across settings and studies. The Q mci screen showed a broader scoring range and greater sensitivity in the mid-range of cognitive performance than the MMSE or MoCA.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Participants101
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 39/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer s Disease Reports) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Journal of Alzheimer s Disease Reports: journal h-index 40 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 101 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 1 / 7 | Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.5 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 4.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 1 / 4 | Last-listed author Mark R. O’Donovan: h-index 17 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 0 / 3 | University College Cork: institution h-index 668 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 39 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1177/25424823261441514
- Original source →
- Free full text: Journal of Alzheimer s Disease Reports →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 15.
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
Also tagged “assessment”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assessment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.