Development and validation of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for People with Vision Impairment (MOCA-VI).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vision impairment is common among older adults and affects dementia screening assessments, which include visually presented items. We developed and validated a version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for people with vision impairment that includes all the cognitive domains included in the standard MoCA. Visual components of the MoCA were adapted by developing alternative spoken forms. We used both individual item analysis and item substitution to identify the optimal set of alternative items for inclusion in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for People With Vision Impairment (MoCA-VI) in place of the original items to maximize sensitivity and specificity for dementia. We evaluated the performance and reliability of the final tool, including adjustments for demographic factors. One hundred twenty-eight participants with vision impairment (presenting distance visual acuity worse than 6/12), 79 cognitively healthy and 49 with dementia, completed the adapted MoCA. An additional 86 participants with normal vision completed the standard MoCA and alternative items to assess score equivalence and independence from vision impairment. Twenty-six participants were retested 2-4 weeks after initial testing. With the optimal item set, the final MoCA-VI had an area under the curve of 0.96 (95% CI [0.93, 0.99]). At a cut point of 24 points or less, sensitivity was 95.9%, with a specificity of 92.4%. The intraclass correlation for test-retest reliability was 0.84 (95% CI [0.81, 0.96]). The MoCA-VI is a specific and reliable test for possible dementia among adults with vision impairment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".