Modality matters for health disparity groups on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): Findings from the Einstein Aging Study (EAS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Telephone‐Montreal Cognitive Assessment (T‐MoCA) is a widely‐used, remotely administered cognitive screen. The T‐MoCA demonstrates adequate psychometric properties and may be used when standard, in‐person administration of the MoCA is not feasible (Katz et al., 2020). There is a critical need to investigate the agreement of the T‐MoCA across administration modalities (in‐person versus telehealth) among ethnically and racially diverse populations. Methods The Einstein Aging Study (EAS) includes a community‐based of racially/ethnically diverse community‐dwelling individuals, ≥ age 70 from the Bronx, NY. Participants (N = 424) were free of dementia at enrollment and completed the T‐MoCA along with in‐person neuropsychological tests including the MoCA‐22, which excludes items unsuitable for telephone administration paralleling the T‐MoCA (Table 1). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between T‐MoCA and MoCA‐22 were used to measure agreement. Linear mixed effects models were applied to compare mean scores and ICCs among ethnic/racial groups, with and without adjusting for age, gender, education and depressive symptoms. Results Participants were on average 78.2 years, 65.8% female, 47.6% non‐Hispanic White, 38.0% non‐Hispanic Black, and 14.4% Hispanic. There was no significant difference between mean T‐MoCA and MoCA‐22 scores and no differential associations with age, gender, education, and depressive symptoms. For both modalities, NH Black (difference ‐1.54, p<.0001) and Hispanic (difference ‐2.04, p<.0001) groups demonstrated significantly lower scores compared to non‐Hispanic Whites (Table 2). As shown in Table 2, ICCs among non‐Hispanic White, non‐Hispanic Black, and Hispanic groups were 0.64, 0.50 and 0.42, respectively, and comparisons of ICCs to non‐Hispanic White were significantly lower in non‐Hispanic Black (p = 0.0495) and borderline significant in Hispanic participants (p = 0.0552). Findings were similar after adjusting for covariates. Conclusion The agreement between telephone and in‐person modalities of the MoCA was weaker in non‐Hispanic Black and Hispanic participants (compared to non‐Hispanic White). Further investigation of factors and/or items that contribute to these lower correlations is warranted. Although the T‐MoCA and other remotely administered cognitive screens have the potential to broaden accessibility to marginalized groups, researchers must use caution when developing or selecting appropriate demographically adjusted norms and interpreting scores of diverse older adults.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".