Psychometric properties of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment v8.2. test: Pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives . The world is rapidly ageing and, with the increasing age, there is a potential increase in the number of patients with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia. This calls for a reliable screening tool that easily and rapidly could identify the symptoms of pathological cognitive decline. As currently such tools are limited in Latvia, the objective of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the newly translated Montreal Cognitive Assessment test. Materials and Methods . Sixty-five Latvian native speakers aged 55-90 ( M = 72.11, SD = 10.26) participated in the study and were divided into three groups – with diagnosis of dementia ( n = 21), mild cognitive impairment ( n = 18) and control group ( n = 26). All participants were assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test [1], and a test-retest was conducted after 2 weeks ( n = 37). Results . Almost all mean values and inter-item correlation coefficients were acceptable (.2-.8), apart from indices in the Naming task and Verbal fluency task. The items showed very high reliability (α = .95) and the test-retest reliability showed consistent results ( r = .98). Conclusions . Overall, the results from the pilot study show acceptable psychometric properties; however, the pilot study should be continued and criterion validity should be tested.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".