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. This volume will be of use both to clinicians and to professionals in disciplines allied to medicine who are called upon to assess patients with possible cognitive disorders, including neurologists, old age psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, primary care physicians, dementia support workers, and members of memory assessment teams.The cognitive performance of patients with breast cancer (BCa) may be affected by cancer and its treatments. Diagnostic tests which identify cases of dementia therefore have an important role.Įxpert authors from around the world equip the reader of Cognitive Screening Instruments: A Practical Approach with clear instructions on the usage of each screening instrument, its strengths and weaknesses, the time required for administration, and rules on scoring, such as how to correct for variations in the patient’s age or education, and suggested cut-off scores.Ĭognitive Screening Instruments: A Practical Approach is a handy, illustrated guide and a valuable diagnostic aid for practitioners working closely with patients with dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Despite this, many patients with dementia never receive a formal diagnosis, with implications for their appropriate care and management.

Dementia and cognitive disorders are now recognised as an increasing public health problem, both in terms of patient numbers and cost, as populations age throughout the world. Cognitive Screening Instruments: A Practical Approach provides a practical and structured overview of some of the most commonly used and easily available cognitive screening instruments applicable in the outpatient clinic and bedside setting.

Moca test version 7.2 pdf