4 Assessment MMSE Totala DEPb NONc CAM Totala DEPb NONc Group Totala CAM versus MMSE Recall Orientation DEPb CAM versus MMSE Recall Orientation NONc P .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 M 22.5 23.0 22.2 19.9 20.4 19.6 pr .724d .462d .802d Table 2: Descriptive statistics for total and subgroup CAM and MMSE scores. Note.. aGDS scores for all participants. bGDS scores of 5–15 only. cGDS scores of 0–4 only. Table 3: Correlations between groups and subgroups of CAM and MMSE scores N 103 36 67 103 36 67 r .741 .666 .649 .786 .462 .801 CAM versus MMSE .724 .01 .746d .01 Recall .755 .01 .732d .07 Orientation .583 .01 .570d .01 Note. aGDS scores of all participants. bGDS scores of 6–15 only. cGDS scores of 0–4 only. dSigniﬁes the use of partial regression correlation coeﬃcient where age is held constant. A Fisher Z was then conducted, indicating no signiﬁcant group diﬀerence (z = 0.67, P = .50). When comparing DEP to NON groups, an independent samples t-test indicated no signiﬁcant group diﬀerences on sex, t = 1.47, P = .145, but did indicate a signiﬁcant group diﬀerence on age, t = 3.62, P < .001. Therefore, partial regression correlation coeﬃcients, holding age constant, were calculated for each subanalysis and are described below. Secondary analyses indicated the eﬀects of depressed mood on the overall relation yielded an r = .72, P < .01 for NON and r = .79, P < .01 for DEP. A Fisher Z was then conducted, indicating no signiﬁcant group diﬀerence (z = 0.67, P = .50). 3.1. Subanalyses. Analyses were conducted to examine the agreement between the two cognitive measures on speciﬁc subsections for orientation and recall (see Table 3). For orientation, the correlation for all participants was r = .65, P < .01, following standard conventions, a correlation in this range suggests that the two measures have a moderate agreement on this subtest. When comparing DEP and NON groups using partial correlation coeﬃcients (holding age constant), a Fisher Z indicated no signiﬁcant group SD 5.9 5.2 6.2 2.7 2.3 2.8 P .01 .07 .01 Journal of Aging Research diﬀerences, z = −1.08, P = .28. For recall, the correlation for all participants yielded an r = .67, P < .01, suggesting that the two measures have moderate agreement on this subtest, as well. When comparing DEP and NON partial correlation coeﬃcients (holding age constant), a Fisher Z indicated no signiﬁcant group diﬀerences, z = −1.42, P = .16. 4. Discussion Cognitive impairment is a common problem in older adults and has been linked to several negative outcomes including poor treatment adherence [25–28] and increased disability, suggesting a need for early recognition in medical and mental health treatment. Multi- disciplinary teams are often asked to provide more speciﬁc and detailed answers and recommen- dations than can be obtained through brief cognitive screen- ing measures. For example, functional recommendations are often sought by rehabilitation professionals (can Ms. Smith resume daily activities?), social security disabilities services (e.g., can Mr. Jones perform work-related activities?), and by families seeking help with planning (e.g., is my aging parent able to manage his/her ﬁnances independently?). Cognitive screening measures like the MMSE, though frequently used, are primarily gross cognitive screening tools and may have several limitations when utilized for purposes beyond detecting global cognitive impairment (e.g., MMSE has poor utility for use with post-stroke medical patients [29]). The CAM is a promising measure for use in geriatric populations because of the wide range of abilities assessed and its utility with brain-injured populations. Previously only one small study has examined the psychometric prop- erties of the CAM using the MMSE as a comparison. Rustad and colleagues found a moderate correlation (r = .44, P = .05), however the sample size reported in this study was small (n = 16), and additional examinations are needed to determine whether this relationship will exist in other samples [23]. This study examined the utility of the CAM as a screening measure and examined its relationship to the MMSE in a relatively large sample of older adults in an outpatient clinic setting. Both measures evidenced adequate/good reliability when evaluated using a Cronbach’s alpha. When examining the orientation subsection alone, reliability estimates remain adequate/good. The overall relation suggests good agreement between the two measures of cognitive status on orientation. The data suggest that when depressive symptoms are taken into consideration, overall scores were not aﬀected; however there was a tendency for depression to aﬀect cognitive functions such as recall and orientation. For example people in the DEP group scored lower on the recall subsection on the MMSE than they did on the CAM. Interestingly they DEP group scored higher on the orientation subsection on the MMSE than they did on the CAM. These ﬁndings were consistent across the NON group, as well. Higher scores on recall on the CAM could be aﬀected by the diﬀerence of the type of words used in recall, however both measures use commonly found objects. Attention could clearly be aﬀected by the fact that the CAM takes longer than the MMSE to administer, and this could in part account for diﬀerences