DRS NORMS 337 Grober & Sliwinski, 1991). Most recently, MOANS normative data have been provided for the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test ivnik et al., 1997) and a frequently used mea- sure of category fluency (Lucas et a., in press). The current paper supplements the existing set of MOANS norms with data for the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (DRS: Mattis, 1988), ‘The DRS is a measure of general cognitive sta- ‘us commonly used both in clinical practice and research. The scale is divided into five subtests, ‘measuring attention, verbal and motor initiation and perseveration, visuospatial construction, conceptualization, and memory. Items are ar- ranged hierarchically, so that more difficult items are presented first. If an individual per- forms adequately on the initial items within a given section, full credit is given for the cemain- ing items in that same section ‘Shay and colleagues (1991) reported that DRS total scores serve as a clinically valid mea sure of the stage of cognitive impairment in de- mented patients. Performance on the DRS has also been associated with functional status in a variety of geriatric clinical populations, includ- ing patients with dementia (Fitz & Teri, 1994; Nussbaum, Goreczny, & Haddad, 1995; Teri, Borson, Kiyak, & Yamagishi, 1989; Vitaliano et al, 1984), psychiatric disorders (Nadler, Rich- ardson, Malloy, Marran, & Hostetler Brinson, 1993), and orthopedic injury (Lichtenberg & Nanna, 1994), Several investigators have shown that DRS scores are useful in detection and differentiation of dementing disorders. DRS total scores dis- criminate normal older adults from patients with dementia of degenerative or vascular origins (e.g., Emery, Gillie, & Smith, 1996; Kaszniak, 1986), Moreover, investigators have observed that patients with probable Alzheimer’s disease demonstrate a pattern of subtest scores that is distinct from that seen in patients with dementia due to Huntington's disease (Salmon, Kwo-on- ‘Yuen, Heindel, Butters, & Thal, 1989), Parkin- son's disease (Paolo, Troster, Glatt, Hubble, & Koller. 1995), progressive supranuclear palsy (van der Hurk & Hodges, 1995), and Bins- wwanger's disease (Berard etal, 1994). Despite its wide use, the DRS currently lacks and andequate normative base to guide clinical decisions. Matti (cited in Spreen & Strauss, 1991) initially suggested that a DRS total score below 137 (of 144 possible points) was indica- tive of cognitive dysfunction, and that survival beyond 20 months was doubtful for individuals with total scores below 100. The sample upon Which these conclusions were drawn, however, consisted of only 11 normal individuals and 20 patients with brain damage (Coblentz et al., 1973). Montgomery and Costa (1983. cited in Matis, 1988) administered the DRS 10 85 nor- mal older adults (25 men. 60 women) with a mean age of approximately 74 years (range = 65-81 years). Participants had a mean of 12.4 years of education and possessed above average verbal abilities, as indicated by a mean scaled score of 13.5 on the Vocabulary subtest of the WAIS (Montgomery, 1982, cited in Spreen & Strauss, 1991), The mean DRS Total Score for this sample was 137.3 (SD=6.), suggesting that Mattis’ original cutoff score of 137 was 100 stringent. A revised cutoff score was proposed reflecting two standard deviations below the sample mean (i, cutoff = 123), The inadequate representation of older individuals (i.e., >80 ‘years) in the sample, however reflects a signifi- ‘cant limitation of these data (Spreen & Strauss, 1991). Moreover, recent studies have demon- strated a significant negative relationship be- tween age and DRS performance (Marcopulos, McLain, & Giuliano, 1997; Schmidt etal., 1994; Smith ct al., 1994a), suggesting that a single cutoff score may not be appropriate across all older age groups. Recently, a large-scale normative study of the DRS was conducted in Graz, Austria (Schmidt ct al., 1994). Data were collected from 1,001 healthy volunteers, and norms for total scores ‘were stratified by age and education. The mean age of participants was 66.3 years (range = 50-80), with a mean education of 10.8 years (SD=2.4), Although the sample size ofthis study is clearly superior to any previously published Feports on the DRS, only 103 individuals were over age 69, and no participants were over 80 years of age. In addition to the lack of older par-