Cognitive differences between healthy monolingual and bilingual anglophones on the English version of the Dépistage Cognitif de Québec: A new screening tool for atypical dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cognitive abilities between monolingual and bilingual individuals may differ, making it important to validate new cognitive screening tools using psychometric testing. Otherwise assessments could be subject to misinterpretation, leading to inaccurate diagnoses. The current project aimed to compare healthy older monolingual and bilingual anglophones on the English version of a new cognitive screening test designed for better recognition of atypical dementia; the Dépistage Cognitif de Québec (DCQ, www.dcqtest.org). The DCQ was developed at la Clinique Interdisciplinaire de mémoire de Québec, and its psychometric properties have been well studied, including its sensitivity and specificity to detect atypical dementia compared to current standardized cognitive screening tests (Laforce et al., 2018; Sellami et al., 2018). Methods The DCQ was administered by qualified psychometricians to 85 healthy native English‐speaking participants aged 50 years and over, in various sites across North America. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to determine participants’ eligibility. Language proficiency was established using the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP‐Q). Results Amidst the anglophone participants recruited, 30 monolingual anglophones and 29 bilingual anglophones met the inclusion criteria. The two groups had similar age, education and MoCA scores. Monolinguals and bilinguals were compared on their total DCQ scores as well as on each of the 5 indexes of the DCQ: Memory, Visuospatial, Executive, Language and Behavioural. Statistical analysis showed a significant advantage for the bilingual participants on the total DCQ scores and on the Language index, which was later washed out following a Bonferroni correction. No significant differences were found between groups on any of the other indexes. Conclusion This study is the first to explore psychometric properties of the DCQ in older monolingual and bilingual participants tested in their native language. The results highlight the importance of identifying and characterizing linguistic diversity before using new screening tools in clinical settings. The potential cognitive advantages of bilingualism, even in healthy older adults, should be considered when interpreting test data and explicitly discussed in neuropsychological reports. Similar studies should be conducted for all future cognitive screening measures, especially to further examine the differences between groups on language‐related tasks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".