4.5 Article

Development of cognitive screening test for the severely hearing impaired: Hearing-impaired MoCA

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 127, 期 -, 页码 S4-S11

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.26590

关键词

hearing loss; dementia; screening; elderly

资金

  1. MED-EL, GmbH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesTo develop a version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to be administered to the severely hearing impaired (HI-MoCA), and to assess its performance in two groups of cognitively intact adults over the age of 60. Study TypeTest development followed by prospective subject recruitment. MethodsThe MoCA was converted into a timed PowerPoint (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) presentation, and verbal instructions were converted into visual instructions. Two groups of subjects over the age of 60 were recruited. All subjects passed screening questionnaires to eliminate those with undiagnosed mild cognitive impairment. The first group had normal hearing (group 1). The second group was severely hearing impaired (group 2). Group 1 received either the MoCA or HI-MoCA test (T1). Six months later (T2), subjects were administered the test (MoCA or HI-MoCA) they had not received previously to determine equivalency. Group 2 received the HI-MoCA at T1 and again at T2 to determine test-retest reliability. ResultsOne hundred and three subjects were recruited into group 1, with a score of 26.66 (HI-MoCA) versus 27.14 (MoCA). This was significant (P < 0.05), but scoring uses whole numerals and the 0.48 difference was found not clinically significant using post hoc sensitivity analyses. Forty-nine subjects were recruited into group 2. They scored 26.18 and 26.49 (HI-MoCA at T1 and T2). No significance was noted (P > 0.05), with a test-retest coefficient of 0.66. ConclusionThe HI-MoCA is easy to administer and reliable for screening cognitive impairment in the severely hearing impaired. No conversion factor is required in our prospectively tested cohort of cognitively intact subjects. Level of Evidence1b. Laryngoscope, 127:S4-S11, 2017

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据