Talk:Mini–mental state examination

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does test score measure "dementia" or cognitive function?

My father age 87 just took this test. Cognitive function was the term used for what the test measured. Same with most of the medical studies I looked at for B12 and folate deficiency. It was described as measuring the subjects cognitive function.
This article relates score on test to dementia only. Real world the test is used not only for dementia but for a range of other issues that can impair cognitive function. Such as depression, nutrition etc. 75.7.212.25 (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree MMSE does not measure dementia. I have changed 'dementia' to 'cognitive impairment' in the article. 131.111.89.79 (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copyright issues

We've received a complaint of copyright violation from the publishers of the MMSE on m:OTRS. Please be careful not to provide so much detail in this article that we basically replicate the test! Thanks, mreplySpang 18:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The publishers of the MMSE? This appeared in a medical journal several decades ago and (?illegal) sheets circulate in all hospitals. The version you removed was written originally by me based on other online sources. It does follow the 30 questions, but that's the whole point isn't it? JFW | T@lk 22:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JFW wrote:

The publishers of the MMSE? This appeared in a medical journal several decades ago and (?illegal) sheets circulate in all hospitals.

I vaguely remember running into this sort of thing once before (when the med students here wanted to publish a small handbook) and I remember thinking it is a load of crap-- not that it isn't copyrighted and not that the publisher doesn't have rights, but that the medical profession standardizes on something like this and lets copyright get into the way of information sharing (which is essential for high quality care). In someways this reminds me of the gif patent. This sort of thing is why I think we need more open access journals.[1] Also, I think it is an argument for turning back the clock on copyright-- it used to be 20 years duration. Anyhoo-- that's my rant.

The MMSE's wording is copyrighted-- but the content of the MMSE isn't; I think JFW's version was alright-- and likely legal but IANAL. FreplySpang what is the text of the complaint? Can you link to it? Nephron T|C 00:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me to this conversation, Nephron, and providing the link to the discussion of its copyright [2] . No, I cannot link to the text of the complaint. It was not a formal "cease and desist" but a polite informal request. Whether or not you feel that copyright is a good thing for tests, Wikipedia still has to comply with it, even if every hospital out there doesn't. (Because we are a prominent website, our violations are far more visible.) I would strongly prefer to keep the description in a summarized version, rather than an itemized list of questions with point scores. Personally, I think it is a more readable article for a lay audience anyway. (There is probably room for expansion beyond the 1-sentence summary I put in!) I see no problem with describing the test, its history, its usage, and the controversy over its copyright status. But giving enough detail that someone could administer the test goes against the spirit of our copyright policy, and the principle that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. FreplySpang 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the importance of following copyright law. If you had the impression I was suggesting that Wikipedia should violate the copyright you misunderstood me. Any case, I added a section about the copyright enforcement. As for Wikipedia is not a how-to guide - I think including the full test would have been appropriate (if it were NOT a copyright violation). Presenting the actual test is a good way of explaining it (as is done in the Abbreviated mental test score article) IMHO as (1) the test is short (2) the relative difficulty of the questions can be assessed more easily. Nephron T|C 06:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are thinking of using the pentagons in displayed- please be aware that they don't comply with the standard set out in the original test. These pentagons that support this article are actually more difficult to draw than the "real" ones from the orginal test.

Psychometric issues

It's interesting to see how much work was put into the copyright section, with the article still lacking the most important aspect: a psychometric and literature critique. I'll see how much I can put in, but I'm not overly familiar with the test (hence my visiting the article). dr.alf 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright revisited

I re-inserted material that explained the copyright status and enforcement that was removed without discussion. It appears there was an effort to muddle fair published criticism. Nephron T|C 03:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright re-revisited, this time re the pentagons

A good-faith anon removed [[Image:InterlockingPentagons.png]], saying that it violated copyright and test security. However, there are problems with both of those ideas. (1) You can't copyright the idea of two pentagons overlapping; you can only copyright a specific drawing of that idea. But [[Image:InterlockingPentagons.png]] was created by a Wiki user and released as GFDL. Therefore there is no copyright issue. (2) As for test security, the fact that there is an interlocking-pentagons diagram on the MMSE, and the general idea of what it looks like, ceased to be a secret many years ago. Therefore I have reverted to the previous version. — ¾-10 01:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol I'm sort of an eavesdropper here. The article only appears on my watchlist because i deleted an April Fool(?) The test is mainly bullshit. I was puzzled as well by the test security issue. Are we to believe that the standardized test can be learnt by the cognitively disabled by rote? I completely agree that the InterlockingPentagons.png image fails every test of presumed copyright. The MMSE version (for descriptive purposes only) doesn't look like the image on the article even. -- BpEps - t@lk 02:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--I don't think the MMSE qualifies for Test Security...Test Security pertains to things like the IQ tests and the SAT and MCAT...things that aren't ubiquitous...things that would be rendered worthless if the test were to become public knowledge. If an examinee were to obtain a copy of the MMSE beforehand, the results would still be valid. Cheating would be more impressive than taking the test cold. Mauvila (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ineligible for copyright?

I'm not sure this question of whether this material was actually copyrighted has been settled. While the article that the test appeared in was copyrighted, US copyright law explicitly states:

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think the MMSE would qualify here, and I think this caveat would also apply to general language (not specific language) that details the use of a procedure. (The idea that a procedure isn't protected, but any mention or recording of it is, would lead to an absurd situation IMO...) In terms of what language of the author's is protected, I would guess that it is the language that shows some originality and that is not a fundamental aspect of the procedure itself. In other words, the instructions to the doctor may be protected (in terms of specific wording), but the exact wording of what the doctor asks the patient is a fundamental aspect of this procedure, and regardless of originality, would be excluded from copyright... I guess this is analogous to a board game, where someone could copyright the manual and the specific graphics associated with it, but they wouldn't be able to copyright aspects of gameplay, including any phrases that one player is to say to another (e.g. "Go fish"). I agree that, for readability, the whole test isn't warranted, but it seemed everyone sort of caved in mighty quickly on this one. Mauvila (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You go explain that to the company that runs amok protecting its intellectual copyright. JFW | T@lk 21:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to MMSE

There are ongoing issues with the use of the MMSE on the workfloor, and some suggest that there are other tools that may be used instead (see here for some examples). The 2007 JAMA review points out that the copyright issue might be a reason to use alternative assessment tools. JFW | T@lk 21:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Development and validation of a brief cognitive assessment tool: the sweet 16. seems to correlate well with MMSE and IQCODE ( Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly) and was designed to be open access but it seems that there is open and then there is reality.... http://www.hospitalelderlifeprogram.org/private/sweet16-disclaimer.php?pageid=01.09.00 "Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc (PAR), and without admission of any liability, the Sweet 16 instrument has been removed from the website and is no longer available for dissemination.". "Sweet 16" is a bit of a stupid name from a google pov unless you like pr0n. Fromthehill (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket received

A second OTRS email has been received at 15:31 on 14/4/10 relating to the copyright of the MMSE. As such, and because Wikipedia respects requests from copyright holders, I have removed the text until the email has been resolved, but be aware that OTRS is not here to fight copyright battles on behalf of editors, merely to handle emails. If the company consider it a violation, it's the editor who added it that they'll take to court, not the Foundation. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements to the effect that "your Wikipedia editing may get you sued/jailed for copyright violations/libel/obscenity/..." do not contribute to a collegial editing environment. If a listing of test items which does not quote from the test itself is somehow determined to be a copyvio, it would be appropriate to use administrative power to enforce its removal. If no copyvio is present, there's no legitimate reason why the text shouldn't be restored. In questionable situations such as this (asserted copyvio without obvious verbatim copying), consultation with the Wikimedia Foundation attorney might be appropriate. Under no circumstances should it be suggested to parties who feel aggrieved by Wikipedia editing that administrators/OTRS will not protect their rights, and that suing individual editors is only viable recourse -- such commentary chills legitimate editorial activity. Emily Jensen (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the text so that the people I'm communicating with at the other end of the ticket see that we're acting in good faith. I've asked for clarification from them on how this exactly violates their copyright. Nk3, I don't understand your post - if you have any exact questions, list them below, and I'll answer them. My sentence about OTRS not being here to 'fight' was in relation to this edit, which inevitably results in a very angry lawyer emailing OTRS, whereas this could easily be dealt with on the talk page without involving OTRS at all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've received no response from the copyright holders to my question, "[Do you] consider abstract descriptions of the test questions as copyrighted, and if so, under what basis?". As far as I am aware under US law, ideas, methods, processes, concepts and discoveries are not copyrightable - only the actual wording of the test is. I have therefore closed the ticket and put the disputed section back in, no harm done. For reference, the OTRS ticket number is 2010041510032152. I should also add that I'm not acting as an admin here - merely as an OTRS volunteer! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link update

Since i have no account of the en.wikipedia: Please someone update the link to reference 14 (Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) Copyright, M. Smith, University of Iowa College of Nursing)

new link: http://www.nursing.uiowa.edu/hartford/resources/MMSE%20Copyright.pdf

thx, greetings, David --79.208.132.94 (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

Text reads: "Below [27 points], scores can indicate severe (≤9 points), moderate (10–18 points) or mild (19–24 points) cognitive impairment." So, what about scores of 25 and 26 points? How are they described? – S. Rich (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mini–Mental State Examination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I have always called this the "Mini Mental Status Examination", so was surprised to see that the title of this article is "Mini Mental State Examination". Skimming the references, I see "Status" more than "State" but can't say I've been comprehensive or keeping score - just hoping that someone else has thought carefully about this? — soupvector (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I do see this unsourced sentence in the lead: "This test is not a mental status examination."; while that might be true, it does not justify re-titling in a manner not supported by MEDRS just to right a great wrong - so perhaps there's evidence that avoidance of "mental status" represents the current consensus. — soupvector (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It was proposed in this section that Mini–Mental State Examination be renamed and moved to Mini-Mental State Examination.

result:
Moved to Mini–mental state examination per discussion below. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move logs: source title · target title

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Mini–Mental State Examination → Mini-Mental State Examination – hyphen more correct Iztwoz (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Dr. Vogel (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. No such user (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iztwoz, I think you're probably right to request this move, as the hyphen would appear to be more correct. But there are 4 issues I can think of:

1) it's been moved 3 times before (although it's worth noting, never in the opposite direction to what you're requesting)

2) the hyphen doesn't fully resolve the issue that the "mini-" applies to "mental state examination" and not just to "mental"

3) capitalisation (there are several options, and I don't think it would be uncontroversial)

4) the title of the article has never been properly discussed on the talk page, as far as I can tell

In view of all this, I think the best thing to do would be to have a proper discussion on the talk page, so that at least the 4th time this article gets moved, there is at least some kind of documented consensus behind the new title.

Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dr. Vogel - sounds like a good proposition. It does seem hard to find a universal usage, especially when some authors use two or three different stylings in their papers.--Iztwoz (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per MOS:PREFIXDASH, this should use a dash, not a hyphen. Instead, move to Mini–mental state examination, since it isn't a proper noun. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Names of tests tend overwhelmingly to take on the form of a 'proper noun' in that the test describes a single entity. See List of tests, and Cognitive test#List of human tests--Iztwoz (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that the hyphen (used extensively) is part of the name, a few sources do leave it out.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't necessarily look to sources when deciding on punctuation marks, since many sources do not really make a distinction between similar-appearing punctuation marks. A particular test seems roughly like a particular process, method, or theory, which MOS:DOCTCAPS indicates should use sentence case rather than title case. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Psychology has been notified of this discussion. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks insane with a dash or hyphen but if we must have one, then it is a dash. This is not a proper name in that it is in all respects descriptive of its nature, However, it might be considered to be a title, in which case, it should take italics or quote marks to indicate same. A google scholar search shows mixed and inconsistent usage. The dificulty lies in whether it is capped to indicate the initialism (MMSE), which is something we don't do, and it is commonly referred to by the abbreviation.Cinderella157 (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Mini–mental state examination per BarrelProof (on both the MOS:PREFIXDASH and MOS:CAPS points). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.