Montreal Cognitive Assessment Hearing Impairment (MoCA-H): cross-cultural adaptation to Brazilian Portuguese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to adapt the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Hearing Impaired (MoCA-H) into Brazilian Portuguese (BP). METHODS: This was a descriptive, cross-sectional, quantitative, and qualitative study involving participants selected by convenience. The instrument was adapted from its original version, in a six-stage process consisting of the following: Stage 1 - Translation and back translation of the MoCA-H; Stage 2 - Stimulus analysis and selection; Stage 3 - Semantic analysis of stimuli; Stage 4 - Analysis by non-expert judges, part 1; Stage 5 - Analysis by non-expert judges, part 2; Stage 6 - Pilot study. The following statistical methods were used in this study: parametric T-test, Gwet's first-order Agreement Coefficient (AC1), and the Content Validity Ratio (CVR). RESULTS: Cultural and linguistic adaptations were made to the instrument as well as changes to administration procedures to improve respondent comprehension. Participants with and without hearing loss had some comprehension difficulties in the visualspatial/executive domain task. This was observed not only in Stage 6 but also from the beginning of the adaptation process. CONCLUSION: The adaptation process yielded an instrument with satisfactory content 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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".