Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status
Also known as: TICS, TICS-m, Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status
The Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) is a telephone-administered cognitive screening instrument developed by Breitner and colleagues in the late 1980s and modified (TICS-m) to assess cognitive function in older adults via remote interview. Designed for epidemiological studies and clinical research where in-person assessment is impractical or resource-intensive, the TICS combines questions assessing orientation, attention, language, memory, and reasoning in a format suitable for administration by trained interviewers without specialized clinical equipment. It has become widely used in longitudinal cohort studies, clinical trials, and telemedicine settings for cognitive screening and monitoring.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
The Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status is used in epidemiological cohort studies, clinical trials, research on cognitive aging and dementia, and increasingly in telemedicine and remote clinical assessment. Administer the TICS or TICS-m to older adults (65+) when (1) screening for cognitive impairment in population-based research where in-person testing is not feasible, (2) conducting longitudinal cognitive assessment in cohort studies with remote participants, (3) monitoring cognitive status in individuals unable to attend in-person clinics due to mobility limitations or geographic distance, (4) establishing baseline cognitive status before randomization in clinical trials, (5) triaging older adults presenting with cognitive concerns to determine need for in-person neuropsychological testing, or (6) remote cognitive assessment during situations limiting in-person contact (pandemic, transportation barriers).
Strengths & limitations
- Remote administration feasibility: enables cognitive assessment via telephone or videoconference without requiring in-person travel, enabling large-scale studies and access for geographically isolated or mobility-limited individuals.
- Standardized protocol: structured interview format with predefined scoring criteria enables consistent administration across diverse interviewers and settings, supporting reproducibility in research.
- Multidomain cognitive assessment: evaluates orientation, attention, language, memory, and reasoning in a single battery, providing a brief but comprehensive cognitive profile.
- Validated against in-person assessment: strong correlation with in-person cognitive testing (Mini-Cog, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, clinical dementia diagnosis) demonstrates adequate validity for screening despite remote administration.
- Efficient and cost-effective: brief administration time (10-15 minutes) and minimal resource requirements make it suitable for large epidemiological studies and remote assessment where in-person testing is impractical.
- Lack of visual performance testing: telephone administration cannot include timed visual tasks or drawing tasks (e.g., clock drawing), potentially missing visuospatial impairment.
- Reliance on auditory processing: individuals with hearing impairment or auditory processing disorders may have reduced performance not reflecting general cognitive ability; hearing assistance or videoconference with visual support may improve administration.
- No motor or performance assessment: does not evaluate motor function, gait, balance, or fine motor skills; cannot detect apraxia or other motor deficits observed in in-person testing.
- Reduced rapport and observation: telephone interview limits ability to observe nonverbal behavior, fatigue, frustration, or cooperation; clinician cannot assess appearance, motor findings, or behavioral concerns.
- Potential environmental confounds: telephone assessment occurs in whatever environment the respondent is in; distractions, noise, or presence of others may compromise test performance.
Frequently asked
What is the difference between a TICS-m score of 30 and 31, and does this one-point difference have clinical significance?
A score of 31 is above the standard cutoff for normal function, while 30 is at or slightly below the threshold for potential mild impairment. This one-point difference may or may not be clinically significant; the cutoff of 31 is statistical and should be interpreted with clinical context. Individual trajectories (change over time) are often more informative than single cross-sectional scores for identifying individuals with cognitive decline.
How should TICS scores be interpreted in individuals with significant hearing impairment or non-English language proficiency?
The TICS is adversely affected by hearing impairment, which may artificially lower scores. Individuals with significant hearing loss should ideally receive in-person assessment with visual support, written instructions, or amplification. Non-English speakers should be administered the TICS in their native language using validated translations; language barriers compromise validity.
Can a high TICS-m score rule out dementia or mild cognitive impairment?
A high TICS-m score (≥31) indicates adequate global cognitive function and reduces suspicion for dementia or moderate cognitive impairment. However, it does not completely rule out early-stage dementia (particularly in cognitively well-reserved individuals) or mild cognitive impairment with minimal global cognitive change. Clinical history and additional evaluation are needed for comprehensive assessment.
How often should the TICS be repeated for longitudinal monitoring, and what change score indicates meaningful cognitive decline?
For epidemiological research, annual or biennial TICS administration is typical. For clinical monitoring of at-risk individuals, annual assessment is reasonable. A decline of ≥3 points on the TICS-m between assessments is often considered potentially meaningful; however, changes should be interpreted in clinical context, considering test-retest variability, health status, and other life events.
Sources
- Breitner, J. C., Folstein, M. F., & Murphy, E. A. (1989). Familial aggregation in Alzheimer dementia: comparison of risk estimates. Genet Epidemiol, 6(1), 35-45. link ↗
- Plassman, B. L., Welsh-Bohmer, K. A., Bigler, E. D., et al. (2007). Telephone assessment of cognitive function in older adults: the Adult Changes in Thought Study. Neuroepidemiology, 27(2), 92-100. link ↗
- Breitner, J. C. S., Wyse, B. W., Anthony, J. C., et al. (1999). APOE-epsilon4 count predicts age when prevalence of AD increases, then declines: the Cache County Study. Neurology, 53(2), 321-331. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.53.2.321 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/gerontology/cognitive-telephone-screening
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- EFSGerontology↔ compare
- FRAILGerontology↔ compare
- GAIGerontology↔ compare
- LSAGerontology↔ compare
- SESGerontology↔ compare