4.5 Article

Validation of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in Spanish as a screening tool for mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia in patients over 65 years old in Bogota, Colombia

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gps.4199

关键词

dementia; mild cognitive impairment; Alzheimer's disease; validation studies; MoCA-S; neuropsychological test; memory disorders

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was developed as a simple screening tool for cognitive impairment. This study is the first validation in Latin America of the MoCA in Spanish (MoCA-S), which was developed in Colombia (South America). Methods: Aiming to perform the first validation of the MoCA-S, we developed a study of concordance by conformity to assess the MoCA-S compared with diagnostic consensus by interdisciplinary assessment in the Memory Clinic (the best diagnostic method available) and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the MoCA-S. A total of 193 subjects were evaluated, 109 of whom were patients, including 26 who met the mild cognitive impairment (MCI) clinical criteria, based on neuropsychological testing, and 83 who had mild dementia (MD). The remaining 84 participants were healthy subjects from the community. Results: The psychometric evaluation of the MoCA-S was appropriate. Using a cutoff score of >= 23, the MoCA had sensitivities of 76.0% to detect MCI and 92.7% to detect MD and a specificity of 79.8%. The percentage of patients clearly labeled by the MoCA-S was 85%. Conclusion: The MoCA-S is a valid screening tool and is useful for identifying MCI and MD in Colombia. The MoCA-S is valid and adequate for application in Colombia with good internal consistency, inter-observer reliability, and content validity. However, the average educational level was high in this study; thus, caution should be exercised when extrapolating these results to individuals with lower educational levels. Copyright (C) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据