The use of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to assess cognitive impairment in Prader-Willi syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose When a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment cannot be carried out, a quick and discriminant tool of good psychometric properties can be useful to practitioners. The purpose of this paper is to examine the use of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in patients with Prader–Willi syndrome (PWS) and to test its reliability for cognitive assessment in a population with intellectual disabilities. Design/methodology/approach Thirty-seven adults with PWS took the MoCA. Reliability of the battery was tested using Cronbach’s alphas. The performance of PWS adults in each subtest was then compared to that of a normative population of healthy adults. Findings The MoCA was found to be unreliable in PWS. The subtests analyses indicated that the PWS sample underperformed the normative population of healthy adults on most subtests of the MoCA. A sub-sample aged between 17and 29 years showed normal performance on Naming and Memory, and a sub-sample aged from 30 to 39 years showed similar performance on Language, Memory and Orientation relative to age-matched normative healthy adults. Research limitations/implications Results showed that the current version of the MoCA, if taken as a whole test for cognitive assessment, does not present with adequate psychometric properties, which the authors interpret as reflecting the heterogeneity in PWS cognitive profiles. If used in PWS, the MoCA may however be useful in examining cognitive functions separately using subtest-based comparisons to normative data. Originality/value This research contributes to a better assessment of cognitive profile in PWS and people with learning disabilities by arguing that the use of psychometric tests should depend more on the specificity of the population under evaluation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".