Construct Validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a brief instrument developed for the screening of milder forms of cognitive impairment. The present study aims to assess the construct related validity of the MoCA through the establishment of the factorial, convergent, and discriminant related validities, and the reliability of data. In a Portuguese sample of 830 participants, several models were tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Although all tested models showed a good fit, the six-factor model based on the conceptual model proposed by the MoCA's authors showed a significantly better fit. The results allowed us to establish the factorial, convergent, and discriminant validity of this six-dimensional structure. An overall psychometric adequacy of the items, and a good reliability were also found. This study contributes to overcome an important gap in the construct related validity of this instrument. The present findings corroborate the six-dimensional structure of the MoCA and provide good evidence of the construct related validity. The MoCA has proved to be an appropriate measure for cognitive screening taking into account different cognitive domains, which will enable clinicians and researchers to use this test and its six latent dimensions to achieve a better understanding of the individuals' cognitive profile.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".