A Comparison of Electronic and Paper Versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate older adults' performance on the paper and electronic Montreal Cognitive Assessment (eMoCA). DESIGN: Repeated measures and correlational design. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 40 adults over 65 years of age living in the community. INTERVENTIONS: Participants completed the eMoCA and paper Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in a randomized order during 1 session. Participants reported their touchscreen experience and comfort and indicated their modality preferences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were paper MoCA and eMoCA total and subscale scores. Secondary outcome measures included participants' reported touchscreen experience and comfort, as well as post-administration preferences. RESULTS: A moderate statistically significant correlation was found between eMoCA and paper MoCA performance across all participants. Analysis comparing first administration modality only (eMoCA vs. paper MoCA) found no statistically significant difference in total scores; however, there was a statistically significant difference for the visuospatial/executive subscale, which required physical interaction with paper or the tablet. For this subscale, participants scored lower on the eMoCA versus paper MoCA. There was a statistically significant correlation between experience with touchscreen devices and performance on the eMoCA, but not between modality preference and performance. CONCLUSION: Modality of administration can affect performance on cognitive assessments. Clinicians should consider individuals' level of touchscreen experience before selecting administration modality.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".