Construct Validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it