Montreal Cognitive Assessment Hearing Impairment (MoCA-H) in Brazilian Portuguese: criterion and construct validity.
Gabriela Konrath, Rochele Martins Machado, Karina Carlesso Pagliarin and 1 others
PMID 41092188WHAT IT FOUND
The Brazilian Portuguese MoCA-H clearly separates older adults with hearing loss who have cognitive decline from those who do not, but it does not correlate with the standard MMSE.
It is a useful screening tool, though further validation is needed.
Key findings
01The MoCA-H total score was significantly lower in the group with cognitive decline (mean 14.75) compared to the group without (mean 19.10), supporting its criterion validity.
02There was no significant correlation between MoCA-H scores and MMSE scores in the group with cognitive decline, indicating weak construct validity against this specific reference test.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study used convenience sampling from a single service, which may limit generalizability. The sample had relatively low formal education (average 6.9 years), so results may not apply to populations with higher education levels. The MoCA-H did not correlate with the MMSE, raising questions about its construct validity when the MMSE is the reference standard. The study did not assess reliability, sensitivity, or specificity, so it is not yet a fully validated diagnostic instrument.
Declared interests
The authors declared no financial support and no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the MoCA-H is interchangeable with the MMSE. The study found no significant correlation between the two tests in the group with cognitive decline, meaning a low MoCA-H score does not necessarily predict a low MMSE score, and vice versa.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →