Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
The Beijing version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment as a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment: a community-based study
Yu J, Li J, Huang X.. BMC psychiatry, 2012-09-25
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Plain-language summary
Background A cross-sectional validation study was conducted in several urban and rural communities in Beijing, China, to evaluate the effectiveness of the Beijing version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-BJ) as a screening tool to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI) among Chinese older adults. Methods The MoCA-BJ and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were administered to 1001 Chinese elderly community dwellers recruited from three different regions (i.e., newly developed, old down-town, and rural areas) in Beijing. Twenty-one of these participants were diagnosed by experienced psychiatrists as having dementia, 115 participants were diagnosed as MCI, and 865 participants were considered to be cognitively normal. To analyze the effectiveness of the MoCA-BJ, we examined its psychometric properties, conducted item analyses, evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the scale, and compared the scale with the MMSE. Demographic and regional differences among our subjects were also taken into consideration. Results Under the recommended cut-off score of 26, the MoCA-BJ demonstrated an excellent sensitivity of 90.4%, and a fair specificity (31.3%). The MoCA-BJ showed optimal sensitivity (68.7%) and specificity (63.9%) when the cut-off score was lowered to 22. Among all the seven cognitive sub-domains, delayed recall was shown to be the best index to differentiate MCI from the normal controls. Regional differences disappeared when the confounding demographic variables (i.e., age and education) were controlled. Item analysis showed that the internal consistency was relatively low in both naming and sentence repetition tasks, and the diagnostic accuracy was similar between the MoCA-BJ and the MMSE. Conclusions In general, the MoCA-BJ is an acceptable tool for MCI screening in both urban and rural regions of Beijing. However, presumably due to the linguistic and cultural differences between the original English version and the Chinese version of the scale, and the lower education level of Chinese older adults, the MoCA-BJ is not much better than the MMSE in detecting MCI, at least for this study sample. Further modifications to several test items of the MoCA-BJ are recommended in order to improve the applicability and effectiveness of the MoCA-BJ in MCI screening among the Chinese population.
What this study adds
Evidence grade: Low
This is a cross-sectional study of 115 participants. This study evaluated the Beijing version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment as a screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Reported effect size: 90.4%; 31.3%; 68.7%.
Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Yu, J., Li, J., & Huang, X. (2012). The Beijing version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment as a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment: a community-based study. BMC psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244x-12-156
Vancouver
Yu J, Li J, Huang X. The Beijing version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment as a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment: a community-based study. BMC psychiatry. 2012. doi:10.1186/1471-244x-12-156. PMID: 23009126.
BibTeX
@article{yu2012-23009126,
author = {Yu, J. and Li, J. and Huang, X.},
title = {{The Beijing version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment as a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment: a community-based study}},
journal = {BMC psychiatry},
year = {2012},
doi = {10.1186/1471-244x-12-156},
pmid = {23009126},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244x-12-156}
}
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
- Results Under the recommended cut-off score of 26, the MoCA-BJ demonstrated an excellent sensitivity of 90.4%, and a fair specificity (31.3%).
- Item analysis showed that the internal consistency was relatively low in both naming and sentence repetition tasks, and the diagnostic accuracy was similar between the MoCA-BJ and the MMSE.
Why it matters
This study evaluated the Beijing version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment as a screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. It concerns screening and diagnosis, not the treatment, cure or prevention of Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants115
- Effect size90.4%; 31.3%; 68.7%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 58/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC psychiatry) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | BMC Psychiatry: journal h-index 198 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 115 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 6 / 7 | Cited 447 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 4 / 5 | 27.9 citations a year over 16 year(s) since 2012 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 7.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 2 / 6 | Cited by 7 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 3 / 4 | Cited 165 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 1 / 4 | Last-listed author Xin Huang: h-index 11 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | Chinese Academy of Sciences: institution h-index 1,801 (OpenAlex) |
| Multicenter collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 23009126) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 58 / 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).
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
7 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis from nearby years
Also tagged “mini-mental”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “mini-mental”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.