ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2026
Recruitment Mode Selectivity and Interview Mode Measurement Effects in a Population-Based Assessment of Cognitive Performance.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesUsing data from the Brain Attack Surveillance in Corpus Christi-Cognitive (BASIC-C) study, we investigate recruitment mode selection effects and interview mode measurement effects in population-based applications of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol (HCAP).
methodsWe compared participant demographics across in-person (n = 1212), telephone (n = 645), and community (n = 363) samples recruited over 2018-2023 to American Community Survey statistics for Nueces County, Texas. We then implemented unadjusted and adjusted models to assess differences in harmonized MoCA scores, HCAP eligibility and completion, and HCAP cognitive domain measures across recruitment and interview modes.
resultsThe samples had significantly different levels of selection effects, with significant differences in the odds of HCAP eligibility (Odds Ratios (ORs) of 0.51, 1.32, p-value < 0.001). The in-person and telephone interview modes showed significant differences in the cumulative odds of harmonized MoCA score categories (Cumulative OR = 1.58, p-value < 0.001) and several HCAP domain scores, and these differences were attenuated but not eliminated after adjusting for participant demographics.
conclusionsThe observed differences in MoCA screening outcomes and HCAP eligibility and cognitive domain scores were largely attributable to recruitment mode selection effects. However, statistical adjustments for population characteristics did not fully attenuate interview mode measurement effects.
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.