The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cross validation of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in community dwelling older adults residing in the Southeastern US
Abstract
Objective: Cross validation study of the MoCA for the detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) in a community‐based cohort residing in the Southeastern United States. Methods: One hundred and eighteen English‐speaking older adults, who underwent diagnostic evaluation as part of an on‐going prospective study, were administered the MoCA and MMSE. Twenty were diagnosed with AD, 24 met criteria for amnestic MCI and 74 were considered cognitively normal. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated using the recommended cut‐off scores and ROC curve analyses were performed to determine optimal sensitivity and specificity. The influence of age, education and gender on MoCA score was also examined. Results: Using a cut‐off score of 24 or below, the MMSE was insensitive to cognitive impairment. Using the recommended cut‐off score of 26, the MoCA detected 97% of those with cognitive impairment but specificity was fair (35%). Using a lower cut‐off score of 23, the MoCA exhibited excellent sensitivity (96%) and specificity (95%). Conclusion: The MoCA appears to have utility as a cognitive screen for early detection of AD and for MCI and warrants further investigation regarding its applicability in primary care settings, varying ethnic groups, and younger at‐risk individuals. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment
Nasreddine, Z. S., Phillips, N. A., Bédirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I., Cummings, J. L., & Chertkow, H. (2005) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x · Cited by 25,553
Mild Cognitive Impairment: Clinical Characterization and Outcome
Petersen, R. C., Smith, G. E., Waring, S. C., Ivnik, R. J., Tangalos, E. G., & Kokmen, E. (1999) · Archives of Neurology · doi:10.1001/archneur.56.3.303 · Cited by 8,980
Cited by
Bischoff-Ferrari, H. A., Vellas, B., Rizzoli, R., Kressig, R. W., da Silva, J. A. P., Blauth, M., Felson, D. T., McCloskey, E. V., Watzl, B., Hofbauer, L. C., et al. (2020) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2020.16909 · Cited by 353
Zygouris, S., Giakoumis, D., Votis, K., Doumpoulakis, S., Ntovas, K., Segkouli, S., Karagiannidis, C., Tzovaras, D., & Tsolaki, M. (2015) · Journal of Alzheimer s Disease · doi:10.3233/jad-141260 · Cited by 158
A Serious Game for Clinical Assessment of Cognitive Status: Validation Study
Tong, T., Chignell, M., Tierney, M. C., & Lee, J. (2016) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/games.5006 · Cited by 132
Calleo, J. S., Amspoker, A. B., Sarwar, A. I., Kunik, M. E., Jankovic, J., Marsh, L., York, M., & Stanley, M. A. (2015) · Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology · doi:10.1177/0891988715588831 · Cited by 71
Hsieh, N., Liu, H., & Lai, W.-H. (2021) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gnaa136 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- Luis, C. A., Keegan, A. P., & Mullan, M.
- Venue
- International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-10-13
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 197-201
- ISSN
- 0885-6230 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1166
- OpenAlex
- W2086711582
- Cited by
- 511
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cross validation of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in community dwelling older adults residing in the Southeastern US. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/gps.2101
- The paper
- Luis, C. A., Keegan, A. P., & Mullan, M. (2009). Cross validation of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in community dwelling older adults residing in the Southeastern US. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.2101
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
