Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 21 (2006) 677–686
The relation of education and gender on the attention items
of the Mini-Mental State Examination in Spanish
speaking Hispanic elders
Mónica Rosselli a,∗ , Ruth Tappen b , Christine Williams c , Judy Salvatierra a
a
b
Department of Psychology, Charles E. Schmidt College of Science, Florida Atlantic University,
2912 College Avenue, Davie, FL 33314, United States
Louis and Anne Green Memory and Wellness Center and Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing,
Florida Atlantic University, FL, United States
c School of Nursing and Health Studies, University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States
Accepted 3 August 2006
Abstract
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) [Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-Mental State: A
practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198] has
frequently been challenged for its bias against individuals with lower levels of education and the use of scoring adjustments for
lower educational levels has become standard practice [Ostrosky-Solis, F., Lopez-Arango, G., & Ardila, A. (2000). Sensitivity
and specificity of the Mini Mental State Examination in a Spanish-speaking population. Applied Neuropsychology, 7, 25–31]. An
additional source of concern is that original instructions specify that the “serial 7’s” item may be replaced by an apparently less
difficult “backwards spelling” task. This study compared the performance on these items and the effects for total scores on 102
unimpaired and 58 memory impaired elder Hispanic individuals (age 54–98), divided into 3 groups based on educational level (<7,
7–11, and >11 years of education). The effects of education and gender on the total MMSE scores were analyzed using the “serial
7’s” and the “backwards spelling” items. For all the studied groups, MMSE scores were higher by an average of 1.5 points when
using the “backwards spelling” task. Correlation between “serial 7’s” and “backwards spelling” was a modest .37. Education had a
significant effect on the MMSE scores in both the impaired and the unimpaired groups. After controlling for education, gender also
explains a significant proportion of the variance of the results. The “backwards spelling” and “serial 7’s” items do not appear to be
either equivalent in difficulty or to test the same abilities in the unimpaired and the impaired Hispanics elders tested in this study.
Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of National Academy of Neuropsychology.
Keywords: Mini-Mental Exam; Spanish; Education; Age; Gender; Culture; Cognition
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975) is a simple, brief, 11-item
instrument designed to evaluate cognitive function in several domains including orientation, registration, attention,
memory, language, and visual construction skills. It is often utilized as a screening instrument to detect dementia and
cognitive changes in neurological, psychiatric, and geriatric populations (e.g., George, Landerman, Blazer, & Anthony,
1991; Lezak, Howieson, & Loring, 2004).
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 954 2361108.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Rosselli).
0887-6177/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of National Academy of Neuropsychology.
doi:10.1016/j.acn.2006.08.001
678
M. Rosselli et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 21 (2006) 677–686
Scores on the MMSE range from 0 to 30 points with scores below 23–24 points usually considered impaired (Kay et
al., 1985; Mendez & Cummings, 2003). The MMSE is highly sensitive (87%) and specific (82%) in the identification of
dementia (Anthony, LeResche, Niaz, vonKorff, & Folstein, 1982; Crum, Anthony, Bassett, & Folstein, 1993). Interrater
reliability values of .69–.95 and test–retest values of .85–.99 (Anthony, Niaz, LeResche, Bon Kirff, & Folstein, 1982;
Dick et al., 1984; Folstein et al., 1975; Molloy, Alemayehu, & Roberts, 1991) suggest that this is an effective instrument,
at least for the English speaking populations used in the above studies. However, these sensitivity and specificity indices
differ in Spanish speaking individuals with low levels of education (Ostrosky-Solis, Lopez-Arangi & Ardila; Rosselli
et al., 2000).
A number of studies have demonstrated that education, age, and ethnicity have an effect on scores on the MMSE
(Blesa et al., 2001; Fillenbaum, Heyman, Williams, Prosnitz, & Burchett, 1990; George et al., 1991; Launer, Dinkgreve,
Jonker, Hooijer, & Lindeboom, 1993; Murden, McRae, Kaner, & Bucknam, 1991; Rosselli et al., 2000). A study of over
18,000 adults in 5 different cities in the U.S. found that both age and educational level influenced scores (Crum et al.,
1993). In a longitudinal study that examined healthy community-dwelling elders aged 65 or older, researchers found that
declines in scores were more evident for the older participants and for those that were less educated (Jacqmin-Gadda,
Fabrigoule, Commenges, & Dartigues, 1997).
In a healthy older Hispanic sample, educational level effects were found to be stronger than age effects on the
MMSE scores (Ostrosky-Solis et al., 2000). In fact, the performance of participants with no schooling (score = 16.38;
S.D. = 4.27) was similar to that of moderately demented patients, while the performance of participants with 1–4 years
of education resembled the performance of mildly demented patients (score = 21.59; S.D. = 4.85). Even in a younger
sample, educational levels were found to have an effect on MMSE scores (Escobar et al., 1986). The investigators found
that items involving reading, writing, and calculation were the most sensitive to educational level. Ostrosky-Solis et al.
(2000) also found that the specificity of the MMSE decreased to 50% in participants with an educational level of 0–4
years. This indicates that the MMSE may be of little diagnostic use among individuals with low levels of education.
The effect of gender on the MMSE is less frequently mentioned than the education effect but has been addressed
by some studies (Jones & Gallo, 2002; Rosselli et al., 2000; Tombaugh, McDowell, Kristjansson, & Hubley, 1996).
Results have in some cases been contradictory probably because of differences in culture between studies. For example,
Tombaugh et al. (1996) studied the total MMSE scores of a group of Canadian elderly participants with an average
of 10 years of education and found that females scored higher than males on the total MMSE score. Rosselli et al.
(2000) found no significant differences in the total MMSE scores between elderly Colombian males and females
with more than 4 years of education. Rosselli et al.’s study found, however, that gender was significant if low educated (i.e. 0–3 years of schooling) males and females were compared. In this case, males outperformed females.
Other authors, like Jones and Gallo (2002), reported gender differences in the items of the MMSE with females having more difficulties with the “serial 7’s” item of the MMSE while males had more problems with the “backwards
spelling”.
In addition to the age, education and gender effects over the MMSE scores, a number of studies have found that
the MMSE is sensitive to cultural background (Anthony, LeResche et al., 1982; Anthony, Niaz et al., 1982; Escobar et
al., 1986). Cultural bias may lead a clinician to mistakenly classify Hispanics as cognitively impaired (Bird, Canini,
Stipee, & Shrout, 1987; Escobar et al., 1986). Adjustment to the score in an attempt to eliminate bias is a frequent
practice in psychometrics. Blesa et al. (2001) found that in a Spanish population, adjustment of scores for age and
educational level increased the specificity of the MMSE without decreasing its sensitivity. Mungas, Marshall, Weldon,
Haan, and Reed (1996) showed that adjustment of scores resulted in greater stability of sensitivity and specificity
across ethnic groups and educational levels. An alternative approach to compensating for the cultural bias is to modify
(Ostrosky-Solis et al., 2000) or delete the item that generates the bias (Anthony, LeResche et al., 1982; Anthony, Niaz
et al., 1982).
The items on the MMSE vary in difficulty. Using Hispanic and non-Hispanic, unimpaired older adults, Marshall,
Mungas, Weldon, Reed, and Haan (1997) found that the attention items were among the most difficult items. This may
be due to the fact that the skills necessary to perform these items correctly are susceptible to deterioration in normal
aging. The attention items consist of either the “serial 7’s” item, in which the subject is required to perform serial
subtraction, or the “backwards spelling” item, which requires that the subject spell the word WORLD (“MUNDO”
in Spanish) backward. Attention tasks may be especially helpful when assessing age-related declines in older adults
(McDowd & Shaw, 2000); although some researchers have cautioned that the attention item of the MMSE may not
yield a reliable measure of change over time (Hopp, Dixon, Grut, & Backman, 1997; Olin & Zelinski, 1991).
M. Rosselli et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 21 (2006) 677–686
679
The attention item represents an important percentage of the MMSE score (5 out of 30 points) so the unreliability
of this item may significantly impact the total score. The possible unreliability of the MMSE attention tasks may be
caused by the way these items are generally administered. Subjects are usually asked to perform the “serial 7’s” item. If
the subject is unable or refuses to perform the task, the “backwards spelling” task is administered. Galasko et al. (1990)
found that English speaking elderly subjects perform better on the “backwards spelling” item than the “serial 7’s”
suggesting that the “backwards spelling” is an easier task. Clinicians, however tend to use the “backwards spelling”
item as an alternative test for “serial 7’s” with no consideration of the possible differences in the level of difficulty
between the two items.
Clinically, “serial 7’s” and “backwards spelling” tasks do not tap exactly the same cognitive abilities. Serial subtraction items, similar to “serial 7’s”, are arithmetic tasks frequently included in calculation ability testing (Ardila
& Rosselli, 2002). “Backwards spelling” is a working memory task, requiring the internal manipulation of certain
information (the written word). It can be conjectured that, even though both tasks are attention-demanding, they assess
different cognitive domains. Equivalence of both tasks in testing for general cognition can be challenged.
The purpose of this study was to compare the total scores on the MMSE when using the “serial 7’s” attention item of
the MMSE or the “backwards spelling” item in Spanish speaking Hispanic elders. Our primary purpose was to examine
the influence of education and gender on the Spanish MMSE test performance of cognitively normal and cognitively
impaired Hispanic elders. Our hypothesis was that people with low levels of education would score significantly lower
in the MMSE if the “serial 7’s” item was used rather that the “backwards spelling”. This difference was expected in
both the normal sample and in the mildly cognitively impaired sample.
A second aim in this study was to analyze the possible interaction of education and gender on the total MMSE scores.
Previous research by Ardila, Rosselli, and Rosas (1989), Rosselli et al. (2000), and Rosselli, Ardila, and Rosas (1990)
showed that females from very low educational levels score significantly lower than males of the same educational level
in diverse cognitive tests. These differences disappear when females and males of high education levels are compared.
A third aim of the study was to analyze the correlates of the two attention items with the other items in the MMSE
to evaluate whether or not the “serial 7’s” and the “backwards spelling” items evaluate the same underlying construct.
If both items tap the same cognitive abilities they should correlate with the same items.
1. Method
1.1. Participants
Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, participants were recruited from various community sites
including independent living and assisted living. Potential participants were recruited at informational sessions held
at the housing sites or were referred by housing managers. A family member was contacted to provide consent for
those unable to consent. Assent was assessed for impaired individuals by their willingness to participate after a simple
explanation. One hundred and two cognitively unimpaired Hispanic elders (30 males and 72 females) and 58 memory
impaired adults (18 males and 40 females) were recruited from various community sites for older adults in the South
Florida area. Exclusion criteria were: history of neurological or psychiatric disease and alcohol or drug abuse use. All
unimpaired subjects had normal scores on the Fuld Object-Memory Evaluation (FOME) (Fuld, 1981). This test has
shown to provide sufficient discrimination between normal and impaired Spanish speaking elders (Loewenstein, Duara,
Arguelles, & Arguelles, 1995). All unimpaired subjects were functionally normal and were living independently. The
impaired sample included elders who had impaired scores on the FOME. Thirty of the impaired participants lived
independently and 28 lived in a long-term care facility where some supervision was available. None of the memory
impaired sample had a history of cerebrovascular disease, substance abuse, or psychiatric problems. The ages of all
participants ranged from 54 to 98 with a mean age of 75.15 (S.D. = 8.81). Spanish was the primary language of all the
participants. Few spoke any English at all.
The participants were divided into three groups based on educational level: less than 7 years of education (unimpaired = 35; impaired = 22), between 7 and 11 years of education (unimpaired = 27; impaired = 12), and over 11 years
of education (unimpaired = 40; impaired = 24). This classification was used to make the educational groups roughly
equivalent to the structure of the educational system that exists in the U.S. Six years or less would correspond to
elementary school, from 7 to 11 years would correspond to middle or high school, and 12 years or more would correspond to a high school diploma or higher. No participant was illiterate; the minimum educational level of participants
680
M. Rosselli et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 21 (2006) 677–686
Table 1
Characteristics of the sample
Education groups (years)
F
p
<7
7–11
>11
Unimpaired
Age
Gender, M:F
FONE total scores
73.77 (7.25)
9:26
24.35 (1.93)
73.78 (8.29)
9:18
23.69 (2.81)
71.88 (7.74)
12:28
24.44 (3.22)
.73
.44a
.65
.48
.80
.52
Impaired
Age
Gender, M:F
FONE total scores
78.27 (11.13)
7:15
14.60 (6.86)
78.92 (7.28)
4:8
16.20 (5.43)
77.63 (9.40)
7:17
15.57 (5.40)
.07
.07a
.51
.93
.96
.60
a
Chi square.
was 2 years of school. No age differences across the unimpaired and the impaired subgroups groups were found. The
characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.
One-way ANOVAs demonstrated no significant differences between males and females in the unimpaired group by
age, F(1, 101) = .34, p = .55, level of education, F(1, 101) = .05, p = .82, or FOME scores, F(1, 101) = .276, p = .10. The
males and females of the impaired group also did not differ in age, F(1, 57) = 1.89, p = .17, level of education, F(1,
57) = .21, p = .64, or FOME scores, F(1, 57) = .15, p = .69.
1.2. Instrument
The Spanish translation of the MMSE developed by Loewenstein, Rubert, Arguelles, and Duara (1995) and previously tested in South Florida was used.
1.3. Procedure
Participants were evaluated individually at their place of residence or community center. The MMSE was administered as part of a larger neuropsychological test battery. The “serial 7’s” item of the attention section was first
administered to all participants as part of the MMSE. If the participant received a score of zero or refused to perform
that particular item, the “backwards spelling” item was administered immediately. If the participant received at least
one point for the “serial 7’s” item, then the “backwards spelling” item was administered at the end of the test. The
administration of the “serial 7’s” item was consistent across subjects but there was a slight variation in the administration
of the “backwards spelling” item.
Two total scores were obtained from each participant. One score included only the points obtained on the “serial
7’s” item, while the other total score included only the points obtained on the “backwards spelling” item.
1.4. Statistical analysis
The following analyses were performed for the impaired and unimpaired samples separately. The performance of
the three education groups of participants on the MMSE was analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of
variance mixed design. The between subjects factor was level of education. The within subjects factor was the attention
item (“serial 7’s” versus “backwards spelling”). A 3 × 2 analysis of variance between subjects design was performed
using gender and education as between subject factors for each of the MMSE total scores. One-way ANOVA was used
to compare mean differences between education groups. The effect sizes of the unvariate and multivariate Fs were
analyzed using partial eta squares (η2 ).
Regression analyses were performed using education and gender as predictors and the MMSE item scores as
dependent measures. In addition, Pearson’s correlations between the attention items and all the other MMSE items
were carried out to analyze the correlates of the two attention items with the other items in the MMSE. These two latter
analyses were performed using the whole sample (impaired and unimpaired together).
M. Rosselli et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 21 (2006) 677–686
681
Table 2
Means and (S.D.) in MMSE “serial 7’s” and the MMSE “backwards spelling” by education groups
Education groups (years)
Education
<7
7–11
>11
Unimpaired
MMSE
Serial 7’s
MMSE
Backwards spelling
23.26<*,+
(3.42)
24.51<*,+
(3.68)
24.81<*
(2.39)
26.48
(1.88)
26.63
(2.53)
27.45
(2.65)
Impaired
MMSE
Serial 7’s
MMSE
Backwards spelling
18.55<*,+
(3.75)
19.68<*,+
(3.95)
22.50
(2.93)
23.83
(2.40)
23.74
(3.80)
25.04
(3.19)
F
Gender
Interaction
p
F
p
F
p
5.82
.004
7.07
.009
2.43
.09
5.93
.004
4.32
.040
.51
.60
12.89
.001
9.06
.004
.47
.62
14.69
.001
2.91
.090
.46
.63
Education and gender main effects and interactions are presented.
<* The mean difference of adjacent groups is significant at the .05 level.
+ The mean difference between groups <7 and >11 years is significant at the .05 level.
2. Results
The mean MMSE scores by educational groups using each type of MMSE (MMSE “serial 7’s” and MMSE “backwards spelling”) for the impaired and unimpaired groups are presented in Table 2. The education effect was significant
in all cases.
2.1. Education effects on the attention items of the MMSE in the unimpaired group
The mean MMSE total score for all unimpaired participants using the “serial 7’s” item was 24.99 (S.D. = 3.37) and
the mean total score using the “backwards spelling” item was 26.19 (S.D. = 3.13). The within subject factor (type of
attention item) had a significant effect, F(1, 99) = 22.43, p = .001, η2 = .19, and the education effect was also significant,
F(2, 99) = 12.87, p = .0001, η2 = .21. The interaction between the type of attention item and the educational group was
not significant, F(2, 99) = .84, p = .43, η2 = .02. Significant differences were observed in the MMSE when using the
“serial 7’s” mean total scores of the participants with less than 7 years of education and the 7–11 years of education
group, F(1, 60) = 3.70, p = .05, η2 = .06 and between the less than 7 years of education and the group with more than
11 years of education, F(1, 73) = 20.94, p = .001, η2 = .22. The “backwards spelling” score of the group with less than
7 years of education differed significantly from the 7 to 11 years of education group (F(1, 60) = 6.37, p = .01, η2 = .10)
and from the more than 11 years of education group (F(1, 73) = 15.94, p = .001, η2 = .18). The mean scores of the
participants with 7–11 years of education significantly differed from the mean scores of the participants with more
than 11 years of education in the “serial 7’s”, F(1, 65) = 6.34, p = .01, η2 = .09 but did not differ from this group’s
scores in the “backwards spelling”, F(1, 65) = 2.68, p = .10, η2 = .04. The less educated group had a significantly better
performance in the “backwards spelling” than in the “serial 7’s” task, F = 9.18, p = .005, η2 = .21. This difference was
also significant for the 7–11 years of education group (F = 20.23, p = .001, η2 = .35), and for the most educated group
(F = 7.11, p = .010, η2 = .10).
2.2. Education effects on the attention items of the MMSE in the impaired group
The total mean MMSE scores of the impaired participants using the “serial 7’s” item was 21.52 (S.D. = 4.3) and
the “backwards spelling” item was 22.76 (S.D. = 4.14). In this group, the within subject factor (type of attention item)
had a significant effect, F(1, 55) = 13.82, p = .001, η2 = .20, and the education group effect was also significant, F(2,
55) = 15.50, p = .001, η2 = .36. The interaction between the type of attention item and the educational group was not
significant (F(2, 55) = .03, p = .96, η2 = .00). Univariate analysis showed that that the MMSE “serial 7’s” mean total
scores of the group of participants with less than 7 years of education was significantly different from the group with
7–11 years of education (F(1, 31) = 6.30, p = .01, η2 = .17) and from the group with more than 11 years of education
682
M. Rosselli et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 21 (2006) 677–686
Fig. 1. MMSE scores by education and gender in the (A) unimpaired group and the (B) impaired group.
(F(1, 47) = 22.36, p = .001, η2 = .32). The MMSE “backwards spelling” scores of the group with less than 7 years of
education was significantly different from the 7 to 11 years of education group (F(1, 31) = 8.54, p = .006, η2 = .22) and
from the more than 11 years of education group (F(1, 47) = 27.06, p = .001, η2 = .37). The less educated impaired group
had a significantly better performance in the “backwards spelling” than in the “serial 7’s” task (F(1, 21) = 4.94, p = .03,
η2 = .19); this difference was also significant for the 7–11 years of education group (F(1, 11) = 8.80, p = .01, η2 = .44)
and for the most educated group (F = 5.03, p = .03, η2 = .18).
2.3. Gender and education
The effect of gender was only significant in MMSE “serial 7’s” with females scoring significantly lower than males
(see Fig. 1). None of the interactions between education and gender were significant although, the gender differences
were more pronounced in the low educated groups.
A regression analysis shown in Table 3 demonstrated that, although education is a very important predictor of the
variability of the MMSE scores, after controlling for it gender is a significant predictor of the MMSE test scores as
well. Gender has a more significant effect on the MMSE total scores when the “serial 7’s” is used and less effect when
the “backwards spelling” is used. This effect was observed in both the impaired and the unimpaired samples.
2.4. Correlations
To analyze the association between the two attention items and the other MMSE items, correlation analyses were
performed (Table 4). A significant correlation between both attention items was found (.37). Both the “serial 7’s” and
M. Rosselli et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 21 (2006) 677–686
683
Table 3
Predictive value of education and gender on the MMSE scores
Variable
Unimpaired
Impaired
Serial 7’s
Backwards spelling
Serial 7’s
Backwards spelling
Step 1␤
Education
R2
.44**
.19**
.40**
.16**
54**
29**
57**
36**
Step 2␤
Education
Gender
R2 change
.44**
.22**
.05**
.39**
.18**
.04*
56**
29**
.08**
58**
16**
.02
*
**
p < .05.
p < .01.
Table 4
Correlations between each of the attention items and the other MMSE items
MMSE item
Temporal orientation
Spatial orientation
Repetition of words
Serial 7’s
Recall of words
Sentence repetition
Three-step command
Reading a sentence
Writing a sentence
Figure copying
Serial 7’s
.34**
.22**
.16
1.0
.18*
.05
.07
.09
.07
.22*
Backwards spelling
.27**
.33**
.09
.37**
.08
.12
.08
.14
.33**
.10
Naming is not included because the maximum score was obtained by all participants.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
the “backwards spelling” items significantly correlated with the two orientation items. However, only the “backwards
spelling” item correlated with the writing item and only the “serial 7’s” item correlated with the recall of the three
words and with the copying of the pentagons.
3. Discussion
We found that differences in scores of about 1.5 points emerged when total MMSE scores were calculated with
the “serial 7’s” versus the “backwards spelling” items. All of the groups, regardless of educational level, obtained
significantly higher total scores when the “backwards spelling” item was used rather than the “serial 7’s”. This confirms
previous findings that suggest that the “backwards spelling” item is an easier task than “serial 7’s” (Folstein, 1998;
Galasko et al., 1990). Galasko et al. (1990) found that 20% of an elderly control sample and 71% of the mild Alzheimer’s
disease sample scored higher on spelling WORLD backwards than when calculating “serial 7’s”. Correlation between
“serial 7’s” and “backwards spelling” items was moderate (.37) but significant. The correlation matrix of “serial 7’s”
and “backwards spelling” items with other MMSE items supports the suggestion that they are tapping different but
overlapping abilities. Both items significantly correlated with orientation items to a similar degree.
The results of this study indicate that educational level plays a significant role in the total score on the MMSE.
This effect is significant in individuals with less than 11 years of education if the “serial 7’s” item is used and in
individuals with less than 7 years of education if the “backwards spelling” item is used. As previously observed by
Ostrosky-Solis et al. (2000), the effect of education on the MMSE scores is significant in individuals with less than 4
years of schooling. Individuals with lower levels of education might be classified as impaired if their total score is not
adjusted for educational level (Mungas et al., 1996).
684
M. Rosselli et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 21 (2006) 677–686
In our study, individuals with less education made significantly more errors than did the highly educated on the
“serial 7’s” item when compared to the number of errors made on the “backwards spelling” item. Jones and Gallo
(2002) found similar results in a sample of English speakers. They found that serial 7’s, backwards spelling, repeating
phrases, writing, naming the season, and copying the intersecting pentagons were affected by level of education.
In fact, although the two attention items are used clinically as equivalent in the administration of the MMSE and in our
study they positively correlate with each other, we found that the correlations with the other items of the MMSE differ.
The “backwards spelling” item correlated positively with writing and the “serial 7’s” item correlated with the recall of
words and with the copying of the intersecting pentagons. These findings suggest that the “backwards spelling” item has
a significant language component whereas the “serial 7’s” has a short-term memory and visuoconstructive/visuospatial
component.
It is interesting to note that spelling, although easier than subtracting in this Spanish speaking sample of Hispanics
elders, is not a skill frequently used in Spanish. Because of its transparent orthography, oral spelling is rarely done
in Spanish. Languages with an opaque orthography such as English require the use of oral spelling. Spanish speakers
are less practiced in spelling than are English speakers (Ardila, 1998). It would be expected that if the performance of
Spanish speakers in the two attention items of the MMSE is compared with the performance of English speakers in the
same item, greater differences between the “serial 7’s” and the “backwards spelling” will emerge in English speakers.
Future research comparing this cultural effect is recommended.
Gender differences were observed on the total MMSE scores when using the “serial 7’s” item. Females scored significant lower than males. Although the interaction between gender and education was not significant in the unimpaired
group, the gender differences in the MMSE scores were more pronounced in the lowest educated group as compared
to the group with the highest level of education. In the Rosselli et al. (2000) study females with less than 3 years of
education scored significantly lower than males with the same education level. No gender differences were observed in
the groups with higher level of schooling. The reverse pattern was observed in our impaired group in which the better
performance of males was more pronounced in the more educated group.
Previous research has reported gender differences in the MMSE scores with women erring more on the “serial 7’s”
item and men on the “backwards spelling” item (Jones & Gallo, 2002). In our study, females and males had on average
higher scores in the MMSE “backwards spelling” than in the MMSE “serial 7’s”. One limitation of this study is that
females were overrepresented in the sample, constituting 70% of total sample. The results of this study need to be
replicated in a sample with equal representation of males and females. Another potential limitation of this study is
the relatively small sample sizes in some groups, in particular the impaired groups. Further research is needed with
a larger sample of impaired elders. A final shortcoming of this study is that our results may be specific for Spanish
speaking Hispanics and may not generalize to other ethnic groups or to English speaking Hispanic elders. Education
differences between these two groups of Hispanics have been reported by the U.S. Census. The educational attainment
of the Hispanic American adult population has been reported to be lower than the education of African Americans and
European Americans (U.S. Census Bureau News, 2004). For example, 57% of the Hispanics older than 25 in the U.S.
have a high school diploma or more compared to 88% of the African Americans and 89% of the European Americans.
Moreover, it was found that among this Hispanic population the percentage of the foreign born with a high school
diploma was significantly lower than that of the U.S. born Hispanic populations. It could be expected that more Spanish
speaking Hispanics elders would be included in the foreign born group.
Hispanic Americans are the fastest growing minority group in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). The number of
Hispanic elders with Alzheimer’s disease is projected to increase six times by 2050 (Alzheimer’s Association Report,
2004). Hispanics are more likely than European Americans to be identified as demented (Espino, Lichtenstein, Palmer,
& Hazuda, 2001) when the MMSE is used. The need for culture fair tests for assessing dementia will be critical in
the years to come. This study has identified significant differences in difficulty level of the “serial 7’s” versus the
“backwards selling” attention items suggesting that they are not equivalent in this Hispanic sample. The attention
items have an important impact on the total MMSE score (i.e. 5 points) and therefore the use of one or the other item
can influence diagnostic accuracy estimates. Future studies should evaluate the sensitivity of the MMSE based on the
scores with the alternate attention items.
Future studies are also needed to examine the potential bias of other items on the MMSE. An example of another
potentially biased item in the MMSE is the orientation item in which the subject is asked to identify the season. For
Hispanic elders who have lived in tropical and sub-tropical environments for much of their lives, there may be less
awareness of the dates associated with four seasons of the year (Ostrosky-Solis et al., 2000). More recently, Simpao,
M. Rosselli et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 21 (2006) 677–686
685
Espino, Palmer, Lichtenstein, and Hazuda (2005) highlighted the influence of acculturation and functional integration
variables on the MMSE performance among elder Hispanic Americans. The tests currently in use by geriatricians and
other clinicians for screening and diagnosis of dementia in older Hispanics are in need of scrutiny for both cultural and
contextual bias.
Acknowledgement
This project was supported by a grant (1R01 NR04477) from the National Institute of Nursing Research.
References
Alzheimer’s Association Report (2004). Hispanics/Latinos and Alzheimer’s disease. Retrieved May 2004, from http://www.alz.org/media/
newsreleases/2004/040511eng.asp.
Anthony, J. C., LeResche, L., Niaz, U., vonKorff, M. R., & Folstein, M. F. (1982). Limits of the Mini-Mental State as a screening test for dementia
and delirium among hospital patients. Psychological Medicine, 12, 397–408.
Anthony, J. C., Niaz, U., LeResche, L. A., Bon Kirff, M. R., & Folstein, M. F. (1982). Limits of the Mini Mental State as a screening test for dementia
and delirium among hospital patients. Psychological Medicine, 12, 392–408.
Ardila, A. (1998). Semantic paralexias in Spanish language. Aphasiology, 12, 885–900.
Ardila, A., & Rosselli, M. (2002). Acalculia and dyscalculia. Neuropsychology Review, 12, 179–232.
Ardila, A., Rosselli, M., & Rosas, P. (1989). Neuropsychological assessment in illiterates: Visuospatial and memory abilities. Brain and Cognition,
11, 147–166.
Bird, H. R., Canini, G., Stipee, M. R., & Shrout, P. (1987). Use of the Mini Mental State Examination in a probability sample of a Latino population.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 175, 731–737.
Blesa, R., Pujol, M., Aguilar, M., Santacruz, P., Bertran-Serra, I., Hernandez, G., et al. (2001). Clinical validity of the ‘Mini-Mental State’ for
Spanish speaking communities. Neuropsychologia, 39, 1150–1157.
Crum, R. M., Anthony, J. C., Basset, S. S., & Folstein, M. F. (1993). Population-based norms for the Mini-Mental State Examination by age and
education level. Journal of the American Medical Association, 269, 2386–2391.
Dick, J. P. R., Ghiloff, R. J., Stewart, A., Blackstock, J., Bielawska, C., & Paul, E. A. (1984). Mini-Mental State Examination in neurological patients.
Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 47, 496–499.
Escobar, J. I., Burnam, A., Karno, M., Forsythe, A., Lansverk, J., & Golding, J. M. (1986). Use of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in
a community population of mixed ethnicity. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 174, 607–614.
Espino, D. V., Lichtenstein, M. D., Palmer, R. F., & Hazuda, H. P. (2001). Ethnic differences in Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores:
Where you live makes a difference. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 49, 538–548.
Fillenbaum, G., Heyman, A., Williams, K., Prosnitz, B., & Burchett, B. (1990). Sensitivity and specificity of standardized screens of cognitive
impairment and dementia among elderly black and white community residents. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43, 651–660.
Folstein, M. (1998). Mini Mental and son. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 13, 290–294.
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-Mental State: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the
clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.
Fuld, P. A. (1981). Fuld-Object Memory Evaluation. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting.
Galasko, D., Klauber, M. R., Hofstetter, C. R., Salmon, D. P., Lasker, B., & Thal, L. J. (1990). The Mini-Mental State Examination in the early
diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Archives of Neurology, 47, 49–52.
George, L. K., Landerman, R., Blazer, D. G., & Anthony, J. C. (1991). Cognitive impairment. In L. N. Robbins, & D. A. Regier (Eds.), Psychiatric
disorders at America: The epidemiologic catchment area study (pp. 237–291). New York: Free Press.
Hopp, G. A., Dixon, R. A., Grut, M., & Backman, L. (1997). Longitudinal and psychometric profiles of two cognitive status tests in very old adults.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 673–686.
Jacqmin-Gadda, H., Fabrigoule, C., Commenges, D., & Dartigues, J. F. (1997). A 5-year longitudinal study of the Mini-Mental State Examination
in normal aging. American Journal of Epidemiology, 145, 478–507.
Jones, R. N., & Gallo, J. J. (2002). Education and sex differences in the Mini Mental State Examination. Effects of differential item functioning.
Journal of Gerontology, Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57, 548–558.
Kay, D. W. K., Henderson, A. S., Scott, R., Wilson, J., Richwood, D., & Grayson, D. A. (1985). Dementia and depression among elderly living in
the Hobart community: The effect of the diagnostic criteria on the prevalence rates. Psychological Medicine, 15, 771–788.
Launer, L. J., Dinkgreve, M. A., Jonker, C., Hooijer, C., & Lindeboom, J. (1993). Are age and education independent correlates of the Mini-Mental
State Exam performance of community-dwelling elderly? Journal of Gerontology, 48, 271–277.
Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Loewenstein, D., Duara, R., Arguelles, T., & Arguelles, S. (1995). Use of the FULD object memory evaluation in the detection of mild dementia
among Spanish- and English-speaking groups. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 3, 300–3007.
Loewenstein, D. A., Rubert, M. P., Arguelles, T., & Duara, R. (1995). Neuropsychological test performance and prediction of functional capacities
among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking patients with dementia. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 10, 75–88.
Marshall, S. C., Mungas, D., Weldon, M., Reed, B., & Haan, M. (1997). Differential item functioning in the Mini Mental State Examination in
English- and Spanish-speaking older adults. Psychology and Aging, 12, 718–725.
686
M. Rosselli et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 21 (2006) 677–686
McDowd, J. M., & Shaw, R. J. (2000). Attention and aging: A functional perspective. In F. I. M. Craik, & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of
aging and cognition (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Mendez, M. F., & Cummings, J. (2003). Dementia: A clinical approach (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Butterworth/Heinemann.
Molloy, D. W., Alemayehu, E., & Roberts, R. (1991). Reliability of standardized Mini-Mental State Examination compared with traditional MiniMental State Examination. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 102–105.
Mungas, D., Marshall, S. C., Weldon, M., Haan, M., & Reed, B. (1996). Age and educational correction of Mini Mental State Examination for
English and Spanish speaking elderly. Neurology, 46, 700–706.
Murden, R. A., McRae, T. D., Kaner, S., & Bucknam, M. E. (1991). Mini Mental Status Exam scores with education in Blacks and Whites. Journal
of the American Geriatrics Society, 43, 138–145.
Olin, J. T., & Zelinski, E. M. (1991). The 12-month reliability of the Mini Mental State Examination. Psychological Assessment, 3, 427–432.
Ostrosky-Solis, F., Lopez-Arango, G., & Ardila, A. (2000). Sensitivity and specificity of the Mini Mental State Examination in a Spanish-speaking
population. Applied Neuropsychology, 7, 25–31.
Rosselli, D., Ardila, A., Pradilla, G., Morillo, L., Bautista, L., Rey, O., et al. (2000). El Examen Mental abreviado (Mini Mental State Examination)
como prueba de selección para el diagnostico de demencia: Estudio poblacional colombiano. Revista de Neurologia, 30, 428–432.
Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., & Rosas, P. (1990). Neuropsychological assessment in illiterates II: Language and praxic abilities. Brain and Cognition,
12, 281–296.
Simpao, M. P., Espino, D. V., Palmer, R. F., Lichtenstein, M. D., & Hazuda, H. P. (2005). Association between acculturation and structural assimilation
and Mini-Mental State Examination-assessed cognitive impairment in older Mexican Americans: Findings from the San Antonio Longitudinal
Study. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 53, 1234–1239.
Tombaugh, T. N., McDowell, I., Kristjansson, B., & Hubley, A. M. (1996). Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the modified MMSE (3M):
A psychometric comparison and normative data. Psychological Assessment, 8, 48–59.
U.S. Census Bureau (2003). The Hispanic population in the United States: March 2002. Washington, DC.
U.S. Census Bureau News (2004). Educational attainment in the US 2003. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20550.pdf.