Equivalencia de las formas alternativas del ‘Montreal Cognitive Assessment’ (MoCA) en el cribado del deterioro cognitivo en adultos mayores: Una revisión sistemática
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Brief cognitive tests are routinely used to detect objective cognitive impairment. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), developed specifically for the identification of MCI in older adults, is among the most used instruments. MoCA has three versions, which allows to reduce the chances of contaminating repeated assessments with the effect of practice. Our aim was to systematically review the psychometric properties of the alternative forms of the MoCA versions and to analyze their equivalence. Method: searching was carried out in the Web of Science, Medline and PsycINFO databases following the PRISMA guidelines guide for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Subsequently, the quality of the selected articles was evaluated using a form adapted from the COSMIN guide. Results: Eight articles with psychometric information from at least two versions of the instrument were selected. Conclusions: Studies on the equivalence of the MoCA versions are scarce and diverse, which makes it difficult to draw valid conclusions. The available data suggests that the original version includes more difficult items and scores lower, especially when compared to version 7.3 of the instrument.
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 | 0.092 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".