Home › Research › How common it is
MDS Cognitive Performance Scale
Morris JN, Fries BE, Mehr DR, Hawes C, Phillips C, Mor V, Lipsitz LA.. Journal of gerontology, 1994-07-01
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Background Chronic cognitive impairment is a major problem in U.S. nursing homes, yet traditional assessment systems in most facilities included only limited information on cognitive status. Following the Congressional mandate in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA '87), U.S. nursing homes now complete the Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized, comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional, medical, psychosocial, and cognitive status. We designed a Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS) that uses MDS data to assign residents into easily understood cognitive performance categories. Methods Information was drawn from three data sets, including two multistate data sets constructed for the Health Care Financing Administration. The prevalence and reliability of the MDS cognitive performance variables were established when assessed by trained nursing personnel. Five selected MDS items were combined to create the single, functionally meaningful seven-category hierarchical Cognitive Performance Scale. Results The CPS scale corresponded closely with scores generated by the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Test for Severe Impairment, nursing judgments of disorientation, and neurological diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. Conclusions The new CPS provides a functional view of cognitive performance, using readily available MDS data. It should prove useful to clinicians and investigators using the MDS to determine a resident's cognitive assets.
Key findings
- Results The CPS scale corresponded closely with scores generated by the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Test for Severe Impairment, nursing judgments of disorientation, and neurological diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Alzheimer's in numbers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of gerontology) |
| 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 | 1994 — 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 | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 8014392) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 61 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Morris, J. N., Fries, B. E., Mehr, D. R., Hawes, C., Phillips, C., Mor, V., et al. (1994). MDS Cognitive Performance Scale. Journal of gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/49.4.m174
Vancouver
Morris JN, Fries BE, Mehr DR, Hawes C, Phillips C, Mor V, et al. MDS Cognitive Performance Scale. Journal of gerontology. 1994. doi:10.1093/geronj/49.4.m174. PMID: 8014392.
BibTeX
@article{morris1994-8014392,
author = {Morris, J. N. and Fries, B. E. and Mehr, D. R. and Hawes, C. and Phillips, C. and Mor, V. and Lipsitz, L. A.},
title = {{MDS Cognitive Performance Scale}},
journal = {Journal of gerontology},
year = {1994},
doi = {10.1093/geronj/49.4.m174},
pmid = {8014392},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/49.4.m174}
}