蒙特利尔认知评估测试:对南非工作场所样本的心理测量分析

C. V. Van Wijk, W. A. Meintjes, Chris J.B. Muller
{"title":"蒙特利尔认知评估测试:对南非工作场所样本的心理测量分析","authors":"C. V. Van Wijk, W. A. Meintjes, Chris J.B. Muller","doi":"10.4102/ajopa.v6i0.151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test is a widely used tool to screen for mild neurocognitive impairment. However, its structural validity has not been fully described in South Africa. The study aimed to replicate and extend earlier work with South African samples, to provide an expanded description of the psychometric properties of the MoCA. The study examined the MoCA in a sample of neurocognitively healthy working adults (N = 402) and individuals diagnosed with mild neurocognitive disorders (N = 42); both groups reported good English proficiency. Analysis included general scale descriptions, and structural and discriminant validity. Age and language, but not gender, influenced MoCA scores, with mean total scores of healthy individuals falling below the universal cut-off. Structural analysis showed that a multidimensional model with a higher-order general factor fit the data well, and measurement invariance for gender and language was confirmed. Discriminant validity was supported, and receiver operating characteristics curve analysis illustrated the potential for grey-zone lower and upper thresholds to identify risk.Contribution: This study replicated previous findings on the effects of age, language and gender, and challenged the universal application of ≤ 26 as cut-off for cognitive impairment indiscriminately across groups or contexts. It emphasised the need for context-specific adaptation in cognitive assessments, especially for non-English first language speakers, to enhance practical utility. Novel to this study, it extended knowledge on the structural validity of the test and introduced grey-zone scores as a potential guide to the identification of risk in resource-restricted settings.","PeriodicalId":34043,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Psychological Assessment","volume":"41 24","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Montreal Cognitive Assessment test: Psychometric analysis of a South African workplace sample\",\"authors\":\"C. V. Van Wijk, W. A. Meintjes, Chris J.B. Muller\",\"doi\":\"10.4102/ajopa.v6i0.151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test is a widely used tool to screen for mild neurocognitive impairment. However, its structural validity has not been fully described in South Africa. The study aimed to replicate and extend earlier work with South African samples, to provide an expanded description of the psychometric properties of the MoCA. The study examined the MoCA in a sample of neurocognitively healthy working adults (N = 402) and individuals diagnosed with mild neurocognitive disorders (N = 42); both groups reported good English proficiency. Analysis included general scale descriptions, and structural and discriminant validity. Age and language, but not gender, influenced MoCA scores, with mean total scores of healthy individuals falling below the universal cut-off. Structural analysis showed that a multidimensional model with a higher-order general factor fit the data well, and measurement invariance for gender and language was confirmed. Discriminant validity was supported, and receiver operating characteristics curve analysis illustrated the potential for grey-zone lower and upper thresholds to identify risk.Contribution: This study replicated previous findings on the effects of age, language and gender, and challenged the universal application of ≤ 26 as cut-off for cognitive impairment indiscriminately across groups or contexts. It emphasised the need for context-specific adaptation in cognitive assessments, especially for non-English first language speakers, to enhance practical utility. Novel to this study, it extended knowledge on the structural validity of the test and introduced grey-zone scores as a potential guide to the identification of risk in resource-restricted settings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34043,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Journal of Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":\"41 24\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Journal of Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4102/ajopa.v6i0.151\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/ajopa.v6i0.151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)测试是一种广泛使用的筛查轻度神经认知障碍的工具。然而,南非尚未对该测试的结构有效性进行全面描述。本研究旨在通过南非样本对之前的研究进行复制和扩展,对 MoCA 的心理测量特性进行更全面的描述。该研究在神经认知健康的在职成人(402 人)和被诊断患有轻度神经认知障碍的个人(42 人)样本中对 MoCA 进行了测试;两组样本均报告了良好的英语水平。分析包括一般量表描述、结构效度和区分效度。年龄和语言(而非性别)对 MoCA 分数有影响,健康人的平均总分低于通用分数线。结构分析表明,一个具有高阶一般因子的多维模型很好地拟合了数据,性别和语言的测量不变性也得到了证实。判别效度得到了支持,接收者工作特征曲线分析表明,灰区下限和上限阈值具有识别风险的潜力:本研究重复了之前关于年龄、语言和性别影响的研究结果,并对不同群体或背景下普遍采用≤26作为认知障碍的临界值提出了质疑。它强调了在认知评估中根据具体情况进行调整的必要性,尤其是针对非英语母语者,以提高实际效用。与本研究不同的是,它扩展了对测试结构有效性的认识,并引入了灰区分数,作为在资源受限环境中识别风险的潜在指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Montreal Cognitive Assessment test: Psychometric analysis of a South African workplace sample
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test is a widely used tool to screen for mild neurocognitive impairment. However, its structural validity has not been fully described in South Africa. The study aimed to replicate and extend earlier work with South African samples, to provide an expanded description of the psychometric properties of the MoCA. The study examined the MoCA in a sample of neurocognitively healthy working adults (N = 402) and individuals diagnosed with mild neurocognitive disorders (N = 42); both groups reported good English proficiency. Analysis included general scale descriptions, and structural and discriminant validity. Age and language, but not gender, influenced MoCA scores, with mean total scores of healthy individuals falling below the universal cut-off. Structural analysis showed that a multidimensional model with a higher-order general factor fit the data well, and measurement invariance for gender and language was confirmed. Discriminant validity was supported, and receiver operating characteristics curve analysis illustrated the potential for grey-zone lower and upper thresholds to identify risk.Contribution: This study replicated previous findings on the effects of age, language and gender, and challenged the universal application of ≤ 26 as cut-off for cognitive impairment indiscriminately across groups or contexts. It emphasised the need for context-specific adaptation in cognitive assessments, especially for non-English first language speakers, to enhance practical utility. Novel to this study, it extended knowledge on the structural validity of the test and introduced grey-zone scores as a potential guide to the identification of risk in resource-restricted settings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信