4.2 Article

Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): Validation Study for Vascular Dementia

Journal

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S135561771200077X

Keywords

Neuropsychological test; Validation studies; Geriatric assessment; Cognition; Vascular Dementia; Alzheimer disease

Funding

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia [Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology] [SFRH/BD/38019/2007, PIC/IC/83206/2007]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/38019/2007] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a brief instrument developed for the screening of milder forms of cognitive impairment, having surpassed the well-known limitations of the MMSE. The aim of the present study was to validate the MoCA as well as its short version, which was proposed by the NINDS-CSN VCI Harmonization Standards for screening Vascular Dementia (VaD) patients. The results, based on a homogeneous sample of 34 VaD patients, indicate that the MoCA is a psychometrically valid and reliable instrument for cognitive screening in VaD patients, showing excellent discriminant validity. Both the full and short versions of the MoCA had excellent diagnostic accuracy in discriminating VaD patients, exhibiting an area under curve (AUC) higher than the MMSE [AUC(MoCA full version) = .950; 95% IC = .868-.988; AUC(MoCA short version) = .936; 95% IC = .849-.981; AUC(MMSE) = .860; 95% IC = .754-.932]. With a cutoff below 17 on the MoCA full version and 8 on the short version, the results for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and classification accuracy were superior compared to the MMSE. In conclusion, both versions of the MoCA are valid, reliable, sensitive and accurate screening instruments for VaD patients. (JINS, 2012, 18, 1031-1040)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available