B-06A Matched Case-Control Study of the Validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for Individuals with Cerebral Vascular Accident or Orthopedic Difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a screening measure of general cognitive functioning. Among the research on its reliability and validity were studies of individuals with traumatic brain injury and cerebral vascular accident (CVA) in acute care; however, a dearth of research exists on the validity of the MoCA for individuals with CVA or orthopedic problems in inpatient rehabilitation settings. A hypothesis of this study was individuals with CVA would exhibit greater cognitive impairment than individuals with orthopedic problems or from a normative sample. Method: The current matched case-control study included 243 individuals matched for age and education level. The participants in this study were randomly selected from archival data that contained scores for the MoCA. The study design included 3 groups: Control group, orthopedic group, and CVA group of individuals from an inpatient rehabilitation setting. Results: The results of a oneway ANOVA showed that scores on the MoCA differed across groups, F(2,240) = 22.92, p < .001. Tukey post-hoc analyses showed significant differences in scores between all groups: Control group (M = 23.84, SD = 4.06), CVA group (M = 18.54, SD = 5.49) and orthopedic group (M = 20.84, SD = 5.31). Conclusion: The purpose of the study was to explore the construct validity of the MoCA for individuals receiving physical rehabilitation due to CVA or orthopedic problems. The findings support past research that found lower MoCA scores for individuals with CVA in acute care. Future research would benefit from exploring the validity of the MoCA for other special populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".