蒙特利尔认知评估听觉项目(MoCA-22):标准数据和可靠的变化指数。

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Nicholas R Amitrano, Alinda Rafaela Lord, David Andrés González
{"title":"蒙特利尔认知评估听觉项目(MoCA-22):标准数据和可靠的变化指数。","authors":"Nicholas R Amitrano, Alinda Rafaela Lord, David Andrés González","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2024.2396380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Our objective was to establish normative data and reliable change indices (RCI) for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment's auditory items (MoCA-22). 4,935 cognitively unimpaired participants were administered the MoCA during an in-person visit to an Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (<i>M<sub>age</sub></i> = 67.9, <i>M<sub>education</sub></i> = 16.2, 65.8% women, 75.9% non-Hispanic-White), with 2,319 unimpaired participants returning for follow-up. Normative values and cutoffs were developed using demographic predictions from ordinary and quantile regression. Test-retest reliability was calculated using Spearman and intraclass correlations. RCI values were calculated using Chelune and colleagues' (1993) formula. Education, age, and sex were all statistically related to MoCA-22 scores, with education having the strongest relationship. Notably, these relationships were not consistent across MoCA-22 quantiles, with education becoming more important and sex becoming less important for predicting low scores. These models were integrated into a calculator for deriving normative scores for an individual case. Furthermore, there was adequate-to-good test-retest reliability (ϱ = 0.56 95% CI [.54, .59]; ICC = 0.75, 95% CI [.73, .77]) and changes of at least 2-3 points are necessary to identify reliable change at 1-3-year follow-up. These findings add to the literature regarding utility of the MoCA-22 in the cognitive screening of older adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Montreal Cognitive Assessment's auditory items (MoCA-22): Normative data and reliable change indices.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas R Amitrano, Alinda Rafaela Lord, David Andrés González\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23279095.2024.2396380\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Our objective was to establish normative data and reliable change indices (RCI) for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment's auditory items (MoCA-22). 4,935 cognitively unimpaired participants were administered the MoCA during an in-person visit to an Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (<i>M<sub>age</sub></i> = 67.9, <i>M<sub>education</sub></i> = 16.2, 65.8% women, 75.9% non-Hispanic-White), with 2,319 unimpaired participants returning for follow-up. Normative values and cutoffs were developed using demographic predictions from ordinary and quantile regression. Test-retest reliability was calculated using Spearman and intraclass correlations. RCI values were calculated using Chelune and colleagues' (1993) formula. Education, age, and sex were all statistically related to MoCA-22 scores, with education having the strongest relationship. Notably, these relationships were not consistent across MoCA-22 quantiles, with education becoming more important and sex becoming less important for predicting low scores. These models were integrated into a calculator for deriving normative scores for an individual case. Furthermore, there was adequate-to-good test-retest reliability (ϱ = 0.56 95% CI [.54, .59]; ICC = 0.75, 95% CI [.73, .77]) and changes of at least 2-3 points are necessary to identify reliable change at 1-3-year follow-up. These findings add to the literature regarding utility of the MoCA-22 in the cognitive screening of older adults.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2024.2396380\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2024.2396380","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们的目标是为蒙特利尔认知评估的听觉项目(MoCA-22)建立标准数据和可靠的变化指数(RCI)。4,935 名认知功能未受损的参与者在阿尔茨海默病研究中心接受了 MoCA 测试(年龄 = 67.9,教育程度 = 16.2,65.8% 为女性,75.9% 为非西班牙裔白人),其中 2,319 名认知功能未受损的参与者返回接受随访。标准值和临界值是根据普通回归和量子回归的人口统计学预测值制定的。使用斯皮尔曼相关和类内相关计算测试-再测可靠性。RCI 值采用 Chelune 及其同事(1993 年)的公式计算。教育程度、年龄和性别在统计学上都与 MoCA-22 分数有关,其中教育程度的关系最为密切。值得注意的是,这些关系在不同的 MoCA-22 量级中并不一致,在预测低分时,学历变得越来越重要,而性别变得越来越不重要。这些模型被整合到了一个计算器中,用于得出单个病例的常模分数。此外,该模型的测试-再测可靠性足够高(ϱ = 0.56,95% CI [.54,.59];ICC = 0.75,95% CI [.73,.77]),至少需要 2-3 分的变化才能确定 1-3 年随访的可靠变化。这些发现丰富了有关MoCA-22在老年人认知筛查中的实用性的文献。
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's auditory items (MoCA-22): Normative data and reliable change indices.

Our objective was to establish normative data and reliable change indices (RCI) for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment's auditory items (MoCA-22). 4,935 cognitively unimpaired participants were administered the MoCA during an in-person visit to an Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (Mage = 67.9, Meducation = 16.2, 65.8% women, 75.9% non-Hispanic-White), with 2,319 unimpaired participants returning for follow-up. Normative values and cutoffs were developed using demographic predictions from ordinary and quantile regression. Test-retest reliability was calculated using Spearman and intraclass correlations. RCI values were calculated using Chelune and colleagues' (1993) formula. Education, age, and sex were all statistically related to MoCA-22 scores, with education having the strongest relationship. Notably, these relationships were not consistent across MoCA-22 quantiles, with education becoming more important and sex becoming less important for predicting low scores. These models were integrated into a calculator for deriving normative scores for an individual case. Furthermore, there was adequate-to-good test-retest reliability (ϱ = 0.56 95% CI [.54, .59]; ICC = 0.75, 95% CI [.73, .77]) and changes of at least 2-3 points are necessary to identify reliable change at 1-3-year follow-up. These findings add to the literature regarding utility of the MoCA-22 in the cognitive screening of older adults.

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
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-PSYCHOLOGY
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: pplied Neuropsychology-Adult publishes clinical neuropsychological articles concerning assessment, brain functioning and neuroimaging, neuropsychological treatment, and rehabilitation in adults. Full-length articles and brief communications are included. Case studies of adult patients carefully assessing the nature, course, or treatment of clinical neuropsychological dysfunctions in the context of scientific literature, are suitable. Review manuscripts addressing critical issues are encouraged. Preference is given to papers of clinical relevance to others in the field. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief, and, if found suitable for further considerations are peer reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees. All peer review is single-blind and submission is online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.
×
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