Reliability and validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment’s auditory items (MoCA-22)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the latent structure, internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, diagnostic accuracy, and criterion validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment’s auditory items (MoCA-22), which has previously been evaluated in small samples if at all. Methods: 11,284 participants completed the MoCA over 1–2 visits to an Alzheimer Disease Research Center (Mage = 69.2, Meducation = 15.9, 57.6% women, 92.4% non-Hispanic white). MoCA-22 items were probed with alpha, omega, confirmatory factor analysis, and test-retest correlations. Scores were related to measures of neurocognition, daily functioning, behavioral-psychological symptoms (BPS), and vision performance for convergent-discriminant and criterion validity. Dementia stage was used to calculate area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) curves and cutoffs for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Results: A single-factor had good fit (CFI = .961; TLI = .945; RMSEA = .061; SRMR = .031), with good internal consistency (Omega total = .83) and test-retest consistency (ICC = .92 at 2.7 years). The strongest convergent correlations were with general cognition and executive functioning, while discriminant validity was demonstrated with its weakest and negative correlations being with BPS. There was strong classification accuracy in distinguishing MCI from normal cognition (AUC = .79; optimal cutoff point < 18), and mild-to-moderate dementia from MCI (AUC = .85; optimal cutoff point < 13). Furthermore, the MoCA-22 had negligible-to-small differences among those with and without vision limitations. Conclusions: These findings add to the evidence of the MoCA-22’s utility and it serves as a useful cognitive screening tool with sound reliability and validity.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".