Abstract
Background The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) rating scale is frequently used to assess cognitive impairments in amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD).
Objectives The aims of this study are to a) evaluate the construct validity of the MoCA and its subdomains or whether the MoCA can be improved by feature reduction, and b) develop a short version of the MoCA (MoCA-Brief).
Methods We recruited 181 participants, divided into 60 healthy controls, 61 aMCI, and 60 AD patients.
Results The construct reliability of the original MoCA was not optimal and could be improved by deleting one subdomain (Naming) and five items, namely Clock Circle, Lion, Digit Forward, Repeat 2nd Sentence, and Place, which showed inadequate loadings on the extracted latent vectors. To construct the MoCA-Brief, the reduced model underwent further reduction and feature selection based on model quality data of the outer models. We produced a MoCA-Brief rating scale comprising five items, namely Clock Time, Subtract 7, Fluency, Month, and Year. The first latent vector extracted from these five indicators showed adequate construct validity with an Average Variance Extracted of 0.599, composite reliability of 0.822, Cronbach’s alpha of 0.832 and rho_A of 0.833. The MoCA-Brief factor score showed a strong correlation with the total MoCA score (r=0.98, p<0.001) and shows adequate concurrent, test-retest, and inter-rater validity.
Conclusion The construct validity of the MoCA may be improved by deleting five items. The new MoCA-Brief rating scale deserves validation in independent samples and especially in other countries.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by Chulalongkorn University. The sponsor did not have any role in the data or manuscript preparation.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Our research involved human participants. This study obtained ethical approval by the Institutional Review Board of Chulalongkorn University (Bangkok), Chao Phraya Abhaibhubejhr Hospital (Prachinburi), and Angthong Hospital (Ang Thong), Thailand, and is in accordance with the principles embodied in the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was provided by all participants and guardians of aMCI and AD patients prior to participation in the study.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The dataset and materials analyzed and/or generated during this study will be available from M.M. upon reasonable request once it has been fully utilized by the authors.
