Translation and Validation of the Thai Version of the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status and the Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Older Adults
Issued Date
2026-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
21623279
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105026869287
Pubmed ID
41499319
Journal Title
Brain and Behavior
Volume
16
Issue
1
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Brain and Behavior Vol.16 No.1 (2026)
Suggested Citation
Sukson P., Muangpaisan W., Chansaengpetch S., Jongsawadipatana A., Siritipakorn P., Treewisut A., Wong-ekkabut J., Intalapaporn S. Translation and Validation of the Thai Version of the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status and the Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Older Adults. Brain and Behavior Vol.16 No.1 (2026). doi:10.1002/brb3.71178 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/114776
Title
Translation and Validation of the Thai Version of the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status and the Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Older Adults
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Introduction: This 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 methods: A 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. Results: Mean 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. Conclusions: TICS and Mini MoCA are valid, reliable tools for cognitive screening in older Thai adults, with Mini MoCA showing slightly superior performance.