Michael Malek-Ahmadi1, Kathy O'Connor2, Sharon Schofield2, David W Coon3, Edward Zamrini2. 1. Banner Alzheimer's Institute, 901 E. Willetta St., Phoenix, AZ, USA. michael.malekahmadi@bannerhealth.com. 2. Banner Sun Health Research Institute, Center for Healthy Aging, Sun City, AZ, USA. 3. College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) has become one of the most widely used cognitive screening instruments since its initial publication. To date, only a handful of studies have explored longitudinal characteristics of the MoCA. AIM: The aim of this study is to characterize the trajectory of MoCA performance across a broad age continuum of older adults. METHODS: Data from 467 cognitively normal participants were used in this analysis. The sample was grouped into four strata based on the participants' age at baseline (60-69, 70-79, 80-89, and 90-99). Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis and mixed-effects spline models were used to characterize the trajectory of MoCA scores in each age stratum and in the entire sample. Intrasubject standard deviation (ISD) was used to characterize the natural variability of individual MoCA performance over time. RESULTS: The ISD values for each of the age strata indicated that year-to-year individual variation on the MoCA ranged from zero to three points. MMRM analysis showed that the 60-69 stratum remained relatively stable over time while the 70-79 and 80-89 strata both showed notable decline relative to baseline performance. The mixed-effects spline model showed that MoCA performance declines linearly across the older adult age span. DISCUSSION: Among cognitively normal older adults MoCA performance remains relatively stable over time, however across the older adult age-span MoCA performance declines in a linear fashion. These results will help clinicians better understand the normal course of MoCA change in older adults while researchers may use these results to inform sample size estimates for intervention studies. CONCLUSION: This study provides an enhanced view of the MoCA's intraindividual trajectory in normal elderly aged 60 and older.
BACKGROUND: The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) has become one of the most widely used cognitive screening instruments since its initial publication. To date, only a handful of studies have explored longitudinal characteristics of the MoCA. AIM: The aim of this study is to characterize the trajectory of MoCA performance across a broad age continuum of older adults. METHODS: Data from 467 cognitively normal participants were used in this analysis. The sample was grouped into four strata based on the participants' age at baseline (60-69, 70-79, 80-89, and 90-99). Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis and mixed-effects spline models were used to characterize the trajectory of MoCA scores in each age stratum and in the entire sample. Intrasubject standard deviation (ISD) was used to characterize the natural variability of individual MoCA performance over time. RESULTS: The ISD values for each of the age strata indicated that year-to-year individual variation on the MoCA ranged from zero to three points. MMRM analysis showed that the 60-69 stratum remained relatively stable over time while the 70-79 and 80-89 strata both showed notable decline relative to baseline performance. The mixed-effects spline model showed that MoCA performance declines linearly across the older adult age span. DISCUSSION: Among cognitively normal older adults MoCA performance remains relatively stable over time, however across the older adult age-span MoCA performance declines in a linear fashion. These results will help clinicians better understand the normal course of MoCA change in older adults while researchers may use these results to inform sample size estimates for intervention studies. CONCLUSION: This study provides an enhanced view of the MoCA's intraindividual trajectory in normal elderly aged 60 and older.
Authors: Sandra Rodríguez-Rodero; Juan Luis Fernández-Morera; Edelmiro Menéndez-Torre; Vincenzo Calvanese; Agustín F Fernández; Mario F Fraga Journal: Aging Dis Date: 2011-04-28 Impact factor: 6.745
Authors: Anne M Damian; Sandra A Jacobson; Joseph G Hentz; Christine M Belden; Holly A Shill; Marwan N Sabbagh; John N Caviness; Charles H Adler Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2011-01-29 Impact factor: 2.959
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: Michael Malek-Ahmadi; Jessica J Powell; Christine M Belden; Kathy O'Connor; Linda Evans; David W Coon; Walter Nieri Journal: Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn Date: 2015-05-05
Authors: Robert Paul; Elizabeth M Lane; David F Tate; Jodi Heaps; Dana M Romo; Erbil Akbudak; Jennifer Niehoff; Thomas E Conturo Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2011-06-04 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Ana Sofia Costa; Arno Reich; Bruno Fimm; Simon Thomas Ketteler; Joerg Bernhard Schulz; Kathrin Reetz Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 2.959
Authors: Paola Sebastiani; Nadia Solovieff; Andrew T Dewan; Kyle M Walsh; Annibale Puca; Stephen W Hartley; Efthymia Melista; Stacy Andersen; Daniel A Dworkis; Jemma B Wilk; Richard H Myers; Martin H Steinberg; Monty Montano; Clinton T Baldwin; Josephine Hoh; Thomas T Perls Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-01-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tomiko Yoneda; Alejandra Marroig; Eileen K Graham; Emily C Willroth; Tamlyn Watermeyer; Emorie D Beck; Elizabeth M Zelinski; Chandra A Reynolds; Nancy L Pedersen; Scott M Hofer; Daniel K Mroczek; Graciela Muniz-Terrera Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2021-11-22 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Jennapher Lingo VanGilder; Christopher S Walter; Caitlin R Hengge; Sydney Y Schaefer Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-09-13 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Sophie Z Gu; Benjamin Beska; Danny Chan; Dermot Neely; Jonathan A Batty; Jennifer Adams-Hall; Helen Mossop; Weiliang Qiu; Vijay Kunadian Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Charles F Murchison; Byron C Jaeger; Jeff M Szychowski; Gary R Cutter; Erik D Roberson; Richard E Kennedy Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2022 Impact factor: 4.160
Authors: Alexander J Rajic; Peter S Pressman; Jonathan H Woodcock; Heidi J Chial; Christopher M Filley Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 4.553