3.9 Article

T-MoCA: A valid phone screen for cognitive impairment in diverse community samples

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dad2.12144

Keywords

cognitive screening scales; equivalence testing; mild cognitive impairment; Montreal Cognitive Assessment; neuropsychology; remote assessment; telephone screening

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [NIA 2 P01 AG03949, R03 AG046504]
  2. Leonard and Sylvia Marx Foundation
  3. Czap Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study validated the effectiveness of the telephone version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (T-MoCA) using equivalence testing and presented conversion methods from T-MoCA to MoCA. Results showed that T-MoCA has sufficient psychometric properties for screening of mild cognitive impairment, especially when clinic visits are not feasible.
Introduction There is an urgent need to validate telephone versions of widely used general cognitive measures, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (T-MoCA), for remote assessments. Methods In the Einstein Aging Study, a diverse community cohort (n = 428; mean age = 78.1; 66% female; 54% non-White), equivalence testing was used to examine concordance between the T-MoCA and the corresponding in-person MoCA assessment. Receiver operating characteristic analyses examined the diagnostic ability to discriminate between mild cognitive impairment and normal cognition. Conversion methods from T-MoCA to the MoCA are presented. Results Education, race/ethnicity, gender, age, self-reported cognitive concerns, and telephone administration difficulties were associated with both modes of administration; however, when examining the difference between modalities, these factors were not significant. Sensitivity and specificity for the T-MoCA (using Youden's index optimal cut) were 72% and 59%, respectively. Discussion The T-MoCA demonstrated sufficient psychometric properties to be useful for screening of MCI, especially when clinic visits are not feasible.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available