Taylor R Hendershott1, Delphine Zhu2, Seoni Llanes3, Kathleen L Poston4. 1. Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94304, United States. Electronic address: trhend15@stanford.edu. 2. Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94304, United States. Electronic address: delphine.zhu@gmail.com. 3. Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94304, United States. Electronic address: sllanes@stanfordhealthcare.org. 4. Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94304, United States; Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94304, United States. Electronic address: klposton@stanford.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is among the most widely adopted screening tools for cognitive impairment because it includes tests in multiple domains and is available in 55 languages. The MoCA is often the only formal cognitive assessment available when comprehensive neuropsychological testing is not practical, such as rural clinical settings or large retrospective and multi-lingual research settings. However, the MoCA domain-specific subsections have never been formally assessed for sensitivity or specificity. Therefore, in Parkinson's disease, we examined whether the subsections of the MoCA could identify cognitive impairment within specific cognitive domains. METHODS: We administered a comprehensive neuropsychological battery to 85 Parkinson's disease participants, who were then categorized as with or without cognitive impairment, with respect to global cognition and in five cognitive domains. We then assessed the domain-specific categorization of the MoCA subsections compared to the full neuropsychology battery. RESULTS: All MoCA subsections predicted impairment in their respective cognitive domain. However, the executive subsection showed the highest sensitivity and specificity (89.3% and 82.5%, respectively), followed by visuospatial (93.3% and 45.7%, respectively) and memory (84.6% and 56.5%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The MoCA is a useful screening tool for PD global cognitive and executive functions. The MoCA is also highly sensitive to visuospatial and memory impairment, but with limited specificity and accuracy these subsections should be interpreted with caution.
OBJECTIVE: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is among the most widely adopted screening tools for cognitive impairment because it includes tests in multiple domains and is available in 55 languages. The MoCA is often the only formal cognitive assessment available when comprehensive neuropsychological testing is not practical, such as rural clinical settings or large retrospective and multi-lingual research settings. However, the MoCA domain-specific subsections have never been formally assessed for sensitivity or specificity. Therefore, in Parkinson's disease, we examined whether the subsections of the MoCA could identify cognitive impairment within specific cognitive domains. METHODS: We administered a comprehensive neuropsychological battery to 85 Parkinson's diseaseparticipants, who were then categorized as with or without cognitive impairment, with respect to global cognition and in five cognitive domains. We then assessed the domain-specific categorization of the MoCA subsections compared to the full neuropsychology battery. RESULTS: All MoCA subsections predicted impairment in their respective cognitive domain. However, the executive subsection showed the highest sensitivity and specificity (89.3% and 82.5%, respectively), followed by visuospatial (93.3% and 45.7%, respectively) and memory (84.6% and 56.5%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The MoCA is a useful screening tool for PD global cognitive and executive functions. The MoCA is also highly sensitive to visuospatial and memory impairment, but with limited specificity and accuracy these subsections should be interpreted with caution.
Authors: Irene Litvan; Kailash P Bhatia; David J Burn; Christopher G Goetz; Anthony E Lang; Ian McKeith; Niall Quinn; Kapil D Sethi; Cliff Shults; Gregor K Wenning Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Irene Litvan; Jennifer G Goldman; Alexander I Tröster; Ben A Schmand; Daniel Weintraub; Ronald C Petersen; Brit Mollenhauer; Charles H Adler; Karen Marder; Caroline H Williams-Gray; Dag Aarsland; Jaime Kulisevsky; Maria C Rodriguez-Oroz; David J Burn; Roger A Barker; Murat Emre Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Irene Litvan; Dag Aarsland; Charles H Adler; Jennifer G Goldman; Jaime Kulisevsky; Brit Mollenhauer; Maria C Rodriguez-Oroz; Alexander I Tröster; Daniel Weintraub Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: J C Dalrymple-Alford; M R MacAskill; C T Nakas; L Livingston; C Graham; G P Crucian; T R Melzer; J Kirwan; R Keenan; S Wells; R J Porter; R Watts; T J Anderson Journal: Neurology Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Christopher G Goetz; Barbara C Tilley; Stephanie R Shaftman; Glenn T Stebbins; Stanley Fahn; Pablo Martinez-Martin; Werner Poewe; Cristina Sampaio; Matthew B Stern; Richard Dodel; Bruno Dubois; Robert Holloway; Joseph Jankovic; Jaime Kulisevsky; Anthony E Lang; Andrew Lees; Sue Leurgans; Peter A LeWitt; David Nyenhuis; C Warren Olanow; Olivier Rascol; Anette Schrag; Jeanne A Teresi; Jacobus J van Hilten; Nancy LaPelle Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2008-11-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Taylor R Hendershott; Delphine Zhu; Seoni Llanes; Cyrus P Zabetian; Joseph Quinn; Karen L Edwards; James B Leverenz; Thomas Montine; Brenna Cholerton; Kathleen L Poston Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Marian Shahid; Jeehyun Kim; Katherine Leaver; Taylor Hendershott; Delphine Zhu; Brenna Cholerton; Victor W Henderson; Lu Tian; Kathleen L Poston Journal: Neurobiol Dis Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 5.996
Authors: Eva M Müller-Oehring; Rosemary Fama; Taylor F Levine; Cheshire Hardcastle; Ryan Goodcase; Talora Martin; Varsha Prabhakar; Helen M Brontë-Stewart; Kathleen L Poston; Edith V Sullivan; Tilman Schulte Journal: J Neuropsychol Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 2.864
Authors: Edward N Wilson; Michelle S Swarovski; Patricia Linortner; Marian Shahid; Abigail J Zuckerman; Qian Wang; Divya Channappa; Paras S Minhas; Siddhita D Mhatre; Edward D Plowey; Joseph F Quinn; Cyrus P Zabetian; Lu Tian; Frank M Longo; Brenna Cholerton; Thomas J Montine; Kathleen L Poston; Katrin I Andreasson Journal: Brain Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.501