Validation of MoCA Test in Vietnamese Language for Cognitive Impairment Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS The goal of this study was to assess how the Vietnamese version of the MoCA test performed in a community-based sample of Vietnamese American (VA) older adults, an immigrant population with whom the MoCA test has not been validated. METHODS Forty-eight older adults were interviewed using a Vietnamese version of MoCA. Item analyses, and construct and criterion validity analyses were performed. We also correlated the MoCA score with individual characteristics, including age, sex, and education. RESULTS Our findings indicate good psychometric applicability and internal reliability, as well as construct and criterion validity of this modification of the MoCA test. The test was found to be a reliable, and likely valid, instrument for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) screening within our study population. CONCLUSIONS The study suggests several potential areas for improvement to enhance discriminating power of certain items and sub-tests, including the memory domain. The promising performance of a Vietnamese version of the MoCA test seen in this study has important practical implications for the screening of MCI among an important immigrant population in community settings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".