Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Scale: Strengths, Limitations, and Implication for Clinical Practice
Pezhman Hadinezhad, Maryam Noroozıan. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 2025-12-20
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The MoCA shows superior sensitivity for MCI detection compared to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), with strengths in brevity, multidomain coverage, and accessibility. However, limitations include: superficial executive function (EF) assessment, cultural and educational bias, lack of recognition/cueing in memory testing, simplistic binary scoring, and risk of floor/ceiling effects. These may affect diagnostic accuracy across populations. The MoCA remains a valuable tool but should not be used in isolation. Clinicians must consider the cultural/educational context when interpreting results. Refinements such as weighted scoring, cued recall, and culturally adapted items, alongside digital versions, could improve accuracy and fairness. Further empirical validation of these modifications is needed.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Hadinezhad, P., & Noroozıan, M. (2025). Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Scale: Strengths, Limitations, and Implication for Clinical Practice. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijps.v21i1.20571
Vancouver
Hadinezhad P, Noroozıan M. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Scale: Strengths, Limitations, and Implication for Clinical Practice. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry. 2025. doi:10.18502/ijps.v21i1.20571. PMID: 42051279.
BibTeX
@article{hadinezhad2025-42051279,
author = {Hadinezhad, Pezhman and Noroozıan, Maryam},
title = {{Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Scale: Strengths, Limitations, and Implication for Clinical Practice}},
journal = {Iranian Journal of Psychiatry},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.18502/ijps.v21i1.20571},
pmid = {42051279},
url = {https://doi.org/10.18502/ijps.v21i1.20571}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The MoCA shows superior sensitivity for MCI detection compared to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), with strengths in brevity, multidomain coverage, and accessibility.
- However, limitations include: superficial executive function (EF) assessment, cultural and educational bias, lack of recognition/cueing in memory testing, simplistic binary scoring, and risk of floor/ceiling effects.
- These may affect diagnostic accuracy across populations.
- The MoCA remains a valuable tool but should not be used in isolation.
- Clinicians must consider the cultural/educational context when interpreting results.
Why it matters
This review discusses the strengths and limitations of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for detecting mild cognitive impairment. It recommends that the tool should not be used in isolation and that refinements are needed, but it does not report any treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Study designnarrative review
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 32/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Iranian Journal of Psychiatry) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Iranian Journal of Psychiatry: journal h-index 28 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | Design recorded as “narrative review”, which our rubric does not rank (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 | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 1 / 7 | Cited 2 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 2 / 6 | Cited 1.3× 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 | 0 / 4 | Cited 2 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Maryam Noroozıan: h-index 28 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | Tehran University of Medical Sciences: institution h-index 810 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42051279) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 32 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.18502/ijps.v21i1.20571
- PubMed: 42051279
- Original source →
- Free full text: Iranian Journal of Psychiatry →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
Also tagged “examination”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “examination”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.