Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment
Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Cummings JL, Chertkow H.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2005-04-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objectives To develop a 10-minute cognitive screening tool (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA) to assist first-line physicians in detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a clinical state that often progresses to dementia. Design Validation study. Setting A community clinic and an academic center. Participants Ninety-four patients meeting MCI clinical criteria supported by psychometric measures, 93 patients with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score > or =17), and 90 healthy elderly controls (NC). Measurements The MoCA and MMSE were administered to all participants, and sensitivity and specificity of both measures were assessed for detection of MCI and mild AD. Results Using a cutoff score 26, the MMSE had a sensitivity of 18% to detect MCI, whereas the MoCA detected 90% of MCI subjects. In the mild AD group, the MMSE had a sensitivity of 78%, whereas the MoCA detected 100%. Specificity was excellent for both MMSE and MoCA (100% and 87%, respectively). Conclusion MCI as an entity is evolving and somewhat controversial. The MoCA is a brief cognitive screening tool with high sensitivity and specificity for detecting MCI as currently conceptualized in patients performing in the normal range on the MMSE.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Nasreddine, Z. S., Phillips, N. A., Bédirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I., et al. (2005). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x
Vancouver
Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2005. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x. PMID: 15817019.
BibTeX
@article{nasreddine2005-15817019,
author = {Nasreddine, Z. S. and Phillips, N. A. and Bédirian, V. and Charbonneau, S. and Whitehead, V. and Collin, I. and Cummings, J. L. and Chertkow, H.},
title = {{The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2005},
doi = {10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x},
pmid = {15817019},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x}
}
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 names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Using a cutoff score 26, the MMSE had a sensitivity of 18% to detect MCI, whereas the MoCA detected 90% of MCI subjects.
Why it matters
This 2005 paper introduced the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a brief screening test, and compared it with the MMSE in 94 people with mild cognitive impairment, 93 with mild Alzheimer's and 90 healthy older adults. At a cutoff of 26, the MoCA picked up 90% of the MCI group (MMSE 18%) and all of the mild Alzheimer's group (MMSE 78%), but it also flagged more healthy people: specificity was 87% versus 100% for the MMSE. It is a screening test that signals who needs a fuller assessment, not a diagnosis, and the authors note that MCI itself is "evolving and somewhat controversial".
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Participants93
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 60/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| Journal's citation record | 3 / 4 | Journal of the American Geriatrics Society: journal h-index 344 (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 | 1 / 5 | 2005 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 93 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 / 7 | Cited 25,563 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 5 / 5 | 1,111.4 citations a year over 23 year(s) since 2005 |
| Impact for its field and year | 4 / 6 | Cited 19.5× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 6 / 6 | Cited by 362 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 4 / 4 | Cited 8,101 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Howard Mark Chertkow: h-index 70 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | McGill University: institution h-index 1,373 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 7 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 15817019) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Total | 60 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
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
362 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.
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.