ReviewFrontiers in psychology2025
Investigating the factor structure of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment: a qualitative review.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Long-Term Oxygen Therapy and Cognitive Function in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review.Pulmonary medicine · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is one of the most widely used screening instruments for Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and dementia. Despite its popularity, uncertainty remains regarding its factorial structure and psychometric functioning across populations and cultures. This review aims to critically evaluate the factorial validity and dimensionality of the MoCA through Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) models. Method: Following the PICO framework, a qualitative review was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria consisted of peer-reviewed empirical studies employing exploratory or confirmatory factor analyses, as well as IRT in samples of older adults. Results: Across CTT studies, findings ranged from two-factor to hierarchical multi-factor models, with a general cognitive factor frequently emerging. IRT analyses generally supported a unidimensional latent structure, identifying Executive Function, Visuospatial, and Language items as the most discriminative, while Orientation and Memory showed low discriminative power. Conclusion: Our results showed that the MoCA primarily measures a general cognitive dimension, reflecting variable contributions from different cognitive domains. Standardizing scoring metrics and ensuring cross-cultural factorial equivalence are essential to enhance the tool's accuracy and interpretation of its score.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.