Comparison of Alternate and Original Items on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a screening tool for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in elderly individuals. We hypothesized that measurement error when using the new alternate MoCA versions to monitor change over time could be related to the use of items that are not of comparable difficulty to their corresponding originals of similar content. The objective of this study was to compare the difficulty of the alternate MoCA items to the original ones. METHODS: Five selected items from alternate versions of the MoCA were included with items from the original MoCA administered adaptively to geriatric outpatients (N = 78). Rasch analysis was used to estimate the difficulty level of the items. RESULTS: None of the five items from the alternate versions matched the difficulty level of their corresponding original items. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the potential benefits of a Rasch analysis-based approach for selecting items during the process of development of parallel forms. The results suggest that better match of the items from different MoCA forms by their difficulty would result in higher sensitivity to changes in cognitive function over time.
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 | 0.007 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".