Sadaf Arefi Milani1, Michael Marsiske2, Catherine W Striley3. 1. Sealy Center on Aging, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. 2. Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, College of Public Health and Health Professions. 3. Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health and Health Professions & College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a popular screening tool for Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). The psychometric properties of the MoCA have not been widely examined in minority groups. We aimed to analyze the discriminate ability of subtests and items by race and ethnicity given gold-standard clinical diagnosis of cognitive status. METHODS: We analyzed data from the National Alzheimer Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set March 2018 data freeze. Stepwise regression was used to determine which subtests predicted cognitive status (normal cognition, MCI, or dementia), by race/ethnicity. Item discrimination and difficulty was calculated by race/ethnicity and cognitive status. RESULTS: In our sample (n=3895), with an average age of 69.7, 80.7% were non-Hispanic white, 15.0% were non-Hispanic black, and 4.2% were Hispanic. Among non-Hispanic whites all subtests, education, and age predicted clinician diagnosis, while visuospatial/executive, attention, language, delayed recall, and orientation subtests were predictive among non-Hispanic blacks and visuospatial/executive, delayed recall, and orientation subtests and education were predictive among Hispanics. Item discrimination and difficulty varied by race/ethnicity and cognitive status. CONCLUSIONS: By understanding the psychometric properties of MoCA subtests, we can focus on subtests that have higher discrimination and more diagnostic utility. Subtests should be further evaluated for use in screening of minority individuals.
INTRODUCTION: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a popular screening tool for Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). The psychometric properties of the MoCA have not been widely examined in minority groups. We aimed to analyze the discriminate ability of subtests and items by race and ethnicity given gold-standard clinical diagnosis of cognitive status. METHODS: We analyzed data from the National Alzheimer Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set March 2018 data freeze. Stepwise regression was used to determine which subtests predicted cognitive status (normal cognition, MCI, or dementia), by race/ethnicity. Item discrimination and difficulty was calculated by race/ethnicity and cognitive status. RESULTS: In our sample (n=3895), with an average age of 69.7, 80.7% were non-Hispanic white, 15.0% were non-Hispanic black, and 4.2% were Hispanic. Among non-Hispanic whites all subtests, education, and age predicted clinician diagnosis, while visuospatial/executive, attention, language, delayed recall, and orientation subtests were predictive among non-Hispanic blacks and visuospatial/executive, delayed recall, and orientation subtests and education were predictive among Hispanics. Item discrimination and difficulty varied by race/ethnicity and cognitive status. CONCLUSIONS: By understanding the psychometric properties of MoCA subtests, we can focus on subtests that have higher discrimination and more diagnostic utility. Subtests should be further evaluated for use in screening of minority individuals.
Authors: Marilyn S Albert; Steven T DeKosky; Dennis Dickson; Bruno Dubois; Howard H Feldman; Nick C Fox; Anthony Gamst; David M Holtzman; William J Jagust; Ronald C Petersen; Peter J Snyder; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
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: Daniel K Horton; Linda S Hynan; Laura H Lacritz; Heidi C Rossetti; Myron F Weiner; C Munro Cullum Journal: Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 3.535
Authors: Felicia C Goldstein; Angela V Ashley; Eric Miller; Olga Alexeeva; Lavezza Zanders; Veronique King Journal: J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 2.680
Authors: Heidi C Rossetti; Laura H Lacritz; Linda S Hynan; C Munro Cullum; Aaron Van Wright; Myron F Weiner Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Lucette A Cysique; Emilia Łojek; Theodore Ching-Kong Cheung; Breda Cullen; Anna Rita Egbert; Jonathan Evans; Maite Garolera; Natalia Gawron; Hetta Gouse; Karolina Hansen; Paweł Holas; Sylwia Hyniewska; Ewa Malinowska; Bernice A Marcopulos; Tricia L Merkley; Jose A Muñoz-Moreno; Clare Ramsden; Christian Salas; Sietske A M Sikkes; Ana Rita Silva; Imane Zouhar Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 3.114
Authors: Emily M Briceño; Roshanak Mehdipanah; Xavier F Gonzales; Steven G Heeringa; Deborah A Levine; Kenneth M Langa; Daniel Zahs; Nelda Garcia; Ruth Longoria; Lewis B Morgenstern Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Dana Mohammad; Nathan Herrmann; Mahwesh Saleem; Richard H Swartz; Paul I Oh; Janelle Bradley; Parco Chan; Courtney Ellis; Krista L Lanctôt Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Taim A Muayqil; Nada K Alamri; Awyshah M Alqahtani; Sarah S Julaidan; Raya Alsuhaibani; Ibrahim Nafisah; Walid A Alkeridy; Bandar N Aljafen; Mohammed H Alanazy Journal: Behav Neurol Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 3.342