Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment: Creating a Crosswalk with the Mini-Mental State Examination
Saczynski JS, Inouye SK, Guess J, Jones RN, Fong TG, Nemeth E, Hodara A, Ngo L et al.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2015-10-27
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objectives To establish Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores that correspond to well-established cut-points on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Design Cross-sectional observational study. Setting General medical service of a large teaching hospital. Participants Individuals aged 75 and older (N = 199; mean age 84, 63% female). Measurements The MoCA (range 0-30) and the MMSE (range 0-30) were administered within 2 hours of each other. The Abbreviated MoCA (A-MoCA; range 0-22) was calculated from the full MoCA. Scores from the three tests were analyzed using equipercentile equating, a statistical method for determining comparable scores on different tests of a similar construct by estimating percentile equivalents. Results MoCA scores were lower (mean 19.3 ± 5.8) than MMSE scored (mean 24.1 ± 6.6). Traditional MMSE cut-points of 27 for mild cognitive impairment and 23 for dementia corresponded to MoCA scores of 23 and 17, respectively. Conclusion Scores on the full and abbreviated versions of the MoCA can be linked directly to the MMSE. The MoCA may be more sensitive to changes in cognitive performance at higher levels of functioning.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Saczynski, J. S., Inouye, S. K., Guess, J., Jones, R. N., Fong, T. G., Nemeth, E., et al. (2015). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment: Creating a Crosswalk with the Mini-Mental State Examination. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13710
Vancouver
Saczynski JS, Inouye SK, Guess J, Jones RN, Fong TG, Nemeth E, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment: Creating a Crosswalk with the Mini-Mental State Examination. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2015. doi:10.1111/jgs.13710. PMID: 26503296.
BibTeX
@article{saczynski2015-26503296,
author = {Saczynski, J. S. and Inouye, S. K. and Guess, J. and Jones, R. N. and Fong, T. G. and Nemeth, E. and Hodara, A. and Ngo, L. and others},
title = {{The Montreal Cognitive Assessment: Creating a Crosswalk with the Mini-Mental State Examination}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1111/jgs.13710},
pmid = {26503296},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13710}
}
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.
Key findings
- Results MoCA scores were lower (mean 19.3 ± 5.8) than MMSE scored (mean 24.1 ± 6.6).
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants199
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| 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 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 199 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26503296) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 30 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
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.