Siciliano M, Chiorri C, Passaniti C, Sant’Elia V, Trojano L, Santangelo G (2019) Comparison of alternate and original forms of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): an Italian normative study. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract 24(3):293–300Ĭosta AS, Fimm B, Friesen P, Soundjock H, Rottschy C, Gross T, Eitner F, Reich A, Schulz JB, Nasreddine ZS (2012) Alternate-form reliability of the Montreal cognitive assessment screening test in a clinical setting. In: Editor (ed)^(eds) Book MoCA Version 3, Cityīruijnen CJ, Dijkstra BA, Walvoort SJ, Budy MJ, Beurmanjer H, De Jong CA, Kessels RP (2020) Psychometric properties of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in healthy participants aged 18–70. Nasreddine Z, Phillips N, Chertkow H (2011) MoCA Version 3. In: Editor (ed)^(eds) Book MoCA Version 2, City Nasreddine Z, Phillips N, Chertkow H (2011) MoCA Version 2.

The Clinical neuropsychologist 29:824–835 Breast 58:130–137Ĭooley SA, Heaps JM, Bolzenius JD, Salminen LE, Baker LM, Scott SE, Paul RH (2015) Longitudinal change in performance on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in older adults. Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care 11:24–31Īraújo N, Severo M, Lopes-Conceição L, Fontes F, Dias T, Branco M, Morais S, Cruz VT, Ruano L, Pereira S (2021) Trajectories of cognitive performance over five years in a prospective cohort of patients with breast cancer (NEON-BC). Isenberg-Grzeda E, Huband H, Lam H (2017) A review of cognitive screening tools in cancer. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bedirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Cummings JL, Chertkow H (2005) The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Joly F, Giffard B, Rigal O, De Ruiter MB, Small BJ, Dubois M, LeFel J, Schagen SB, Ahles TA, Wefel JS, Vardy JL, Pancré V, Lange M (2012) Castel H (2015) Impact of cancer and its treatments on cognitive function: advances in research From the Paris International Cognition and Cancer Task Force Symposium and Update Since. Conclusionĭespite similar overall scores being obtained with the two versions of the MoCA, there were item-specific differences that may compromise their interchangeable use.Īhles TA (2012) Brain vulnerability to chemotherapy toxicities Psycho-Oncology 21:1141–1148 In version 7.1, the language and memory domains presented higher scores and lower visuospatial ability.

There were significant differences in the percentage of correct answers in 7 out of 12 tasks, being the highest for the copy of a geometric figure (more than twofold higher with version 7.3). For women with midrange scores, total scores were significantly higher in version 7.1. The Bland–Altman limits of agreement were − 3.70 to 3.88. The mean total scores were not statistically different between versions and the ICC was 0.890. Agreements between versions, regarding total, sub-domain, and task scores, were assessed using Bland–Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). At the 3-year follow-up ( n = 422), the 7.1 and 7.3 versions were applied at the beginning and at the end (approximately 1 h later) of this evaluation, respectively. MethodsīCa patients from the NEON-BC cohort were evaluated with the MoCA, version 7.1, after diagnosis and after 1 year. Since learning effects could be overcome through the alternate use of two versions of the MoCA, we aimed to explore their interchangeability by comparing their overall, and domain- and task-specific, scores among patients with BCa. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a widely used cognitive impairment screening tool, but practice effects must be considered for longitudinal assessments. The cognitive performance of patients with breast cancer (BCa) may be affected by cancer and its treatments.

Moca test version 7.3 pdf