Talk:Mini–mental state examination

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Does test score measure "dementia" or cognitive function?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Psychometric issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright revisited 

message: A good-faith anon removed , 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright re-revisited, this time re the pentagons 

message: 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)
replies: text: You go explain that to the company that runs amok protecting its intellectual copyright. JFW | T@lk 21:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ineligible for copyright? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Alternatives to MMSE 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: OTRS ticket received

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link update 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100225203601/http://www.utmb.edu/psychology/ClinPsych/MiniMental.htm to http://www.utmb.edu/psychology/ClinPsych/MiniMental.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117212223/http://www.elsevier.com/framework_aboutus/pdfs/historyofelsevier.pdf to http://www.elsevier.com/framework_aboutus/pdfs/historyofelsevier.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060627004052/http://www.minimental.com/ to http://www.minimental.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: BTW, I do see this unsourced sentence in the lead: ; 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)
thread_title:  Title