Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Getting a diagnosis

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

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).

Key findings

Why it matters

This study developed and validated a version of the MoCA for people with vision impairment, which showed high sensitivity and specificity for possible dementia. It is a screening tool for detecting possible dementia and does not address treating, curing or preventing the disease.

Study details

How this study scored 48/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 2 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 2 of 7; Citations per year 1 of 5; Impact for its field and year 3 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 1 of 4; Senior author's track record 2 of 4; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 3 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. Total 48 of 100.48 of 100 points earned52 not earned

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Psychological Assessment)
Journal's citation record 2 / 4 Psychological Assessment: journal h-index 242 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 4 / 5 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 86 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 2 / 7 Cited 8 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 1 / 5 2.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year 3 / 6 Cited 5.1× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 1 / 4 Cited 8 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 2 / 4 Last-listed author Iracema Leroi: h-index 48 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 2 / 3 Inserm: institution h-index 1,988 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 3 / 3 OpenAlex lists 18 institution(s) in 7 countries
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39946630)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Total 48 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Dawes, P., Reeves, D. J., Yeung, W. K., Holland, F., Charalambous, A. P., David, R., et al. (2025). Development and validation of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for People with Vision Impairment (MOCA-VI). Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001357

Vancouver

Dawes P, Reeves DJ, Yeung WK, Holland F, Charalambous AP, David R, et al. Development and validation of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for People with Vision Impairment (MOCA-VI). Psychological Assessment. 2025. doi:10.1037/pas0001357. PMID: 39946630.

BibTeX

@article{dawes2025-39946630,
  author  = {Dawes, Piers and Reeves, David J. and Yeung, Wai Kent and Holland, Fiona and Charalambous, Anna Pavlina and David, Renaud and Helmer, Catherine and Keay, Lisa J. and others},
  title   = {{Development and validation of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for People with Vision Impairment (MOCA-VI)}},
  journal = {Psychological Assessment},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1037/pas0001357},
  pmid    = {39946630},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001357}
}

Related studies in Getting a diagnosis

Also tagged “assessment”

840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assessment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Getting a diagnosis

See all studies in Getting a diagnosis →