Taim A Muayqil1, Nada K Alamri1, Awyshah M Alqahtani1, Sarah S Julaidan1, Raya Alsuhaibani1, Ibrahim Nafisah2, Walid A Alkeridy3,4, Bandar N Aljafen1, Mohammed H Alanazy1. 1. Neurology Unit, Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2. Department of Statistics and Operations Research, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 3. Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 4. Department of Medicine, Geriatric Division, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Currently, there are standard and basic versions of the MoCA, the latter designed for those with lower educational achievements. Community-based normative data on these versions of the MoCA from Arabic populations are deficient, and there is little data demonstrating how both scales perform in comparison. We aim to obtain normative performances from both versions and equate the measures of both scales. METHODS: Community-based recruitment of healthy volunteers ≥ 18 years of age. Participants underwent testing with both versions. Demographic data was collected with regard to age, gender, years of education, diabetes, and hypertension. Regression analysis was performed to determine significance of variables, and the circle-arc equating method was used to equate the two scores from each scale. RESULTS: 311 participants were included in the study. The mean (sd) age was 45.8 (15.96), females were 184 (59.16%), and the duration of education was 12.7 (5.67) years. The mean scores on the MoCA-A and MoCA-B were 21.47 (4.53) and 24.37 (4.71) (P < 0.0001), respectively. Multivariate regression showed significance of age and years of education in both versions (both variables with P < 0.0001). Correlation coefficient between the two scales was 0.77 (P < 0.0001). The largest equated difference between both MoCA versions was four points in those scoring from 10-20 on the MoCA-A. CONCLUSION: We present normative data from a large Saudi Arabian community-based sample with two different MoCA tests, and an equating graph is presented to determine the corresponding expected performance between the two scales.
INTRODUCTION: Currently, there are standard and basic versions of the MoCA, the latter designed for those with lower educational achievements. Community-based normative data on these versions of the MoCA from Arabic populations are deficient, and there is little data demonstrating how both scales perform in comparison. We aim to obtain normative performances from both versions and equate the measures of both scales. METHODS: Community-based recruitment of healthy volunteers ≥ 18 years of age. Participants underwent testing with both versions. Demographic data was collected with regard to age, gender, years of education, diabetes, and hypertension. Regression analysis was performed to determine significance of variables, and the circle-arc equating method was used to equate the two scores from each scale. RESULTS: 311 participants were included in the study. The mean (sd) age was 45.8 (15.96), females were 184 (59.16%), and the duration of education was 12.7 (5.67) years. The mean scores on the MoCA-A and MoCA-B were 21.47 (4.53) and 24.37 (4.71) (P < 0.0001), respectively. Multivariate regression showed significance of age and years of education in both versions (both variables with P < 0.0001). Correlation coefficient between the two scales was 0.77 (P < 0.0001). The largest equated difference between both MoCA versions was four points in those scoring from 10-20 on the MoCA-A. CONCLUSION: We present normative data from a large Saudi Arabian community-based sample with two different MoCA tests, and an equating graph is presented to determine the corresponding expected performance between the two scales.
Authors: Ashwin A Kotwal; Philip Schumm; David W Kern; Martha K McClintock; Linda J Waite; Joseph W Shega; Megan J Huisingh-Scheetz; William Dale Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2015 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: A J Saykin; R C Gur; R E Gur; D L Shtasel; K A Flannery; L H Mozley; B L Malamut; B Watson; P D Mozley Journal: Appl Neuropsychol Date: 1995-05
Authors: Karolina G Cesar; Mônica S Yassuda; Fabio H G Porto; Sonia M D Brucki; Ricardo Nitrini Journal: Arq Neuropsiquiatr Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 1.420
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: Roy P C Kessels; Nathalie R de Vent; Carolien J W H Bruijnen; Michelle G Jansen; Jos F M de Jonghe; Boukje A G Dijkstra; Joukje M Oosterman Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 4.964