Reliability of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in people with stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relative and absolute reliability of the Taiwanese version of the MoCA (MoCA-T) in people with stroke. The study recruited 114 individuals who were at least 3 months after the onset of a first-ever unilateral stroke. The MoCA-T was administered twice, at a 6-week interval, to all participants. The relative reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and the absolute reliability was assessed using standard error of measurement (SEM), the smallest real difference (SRD), the SRD percentage, and the Bland-Altman method. The ICC analysis showed the MoCA-T was highly reliable (ICC = 0.85). The absolute reliability was between an acceptable and excellent level, where the SEM and the SRD at the 95% confidence interval were 1.38 and 3.83, respectively. The Bland-Altman analyses showed no systematic bias between repeated measurements. The range of the 95% limits of agreement was narrow, indicating a high level of stability over time. These findings suggest that the MoCA-T has high agreement between repeated measurements without systematic bias. The threshold to detect real change stands between an acceptable and excellent level. The MoCA-T is a reliable tool for cognitive screening in stroke rehabilitation.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".