Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a common neurodegenerative disease associated with cognitive impairment. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) has been used as a recommended global cognition scale for patients with PD, but there are some concerns about its application, partially due to the floor and ceiling effects.ObjectiveTo explore the floor and ceiling effects on the MoCA in patients with PD in Brazil.MethodsCross-sectional study with data from patients with PD from five Brazilian Movement Disorders Clinics, excluding individuals with a possible diagnosis of dementia. We analyzed the total score of the MoCA, as well as its seven cognitive domains. The floor and ceiling effects were evaluated for the total MoCA score and domains. Multivariate analyses were performed to detect factors associated with floor and ceiling effects.ResultsWe evaluated data from 366 patients with PD and approximately 19% of individuals had less than five years of education. For the total MoCA score, there was no floor or ceiling effect. There was a floor effect in the abstraction and delayed memory recall domains in 20% of our sample. The ceiling effect was demonstrated in all domains (80.8% more common in naming and 89% orientation), except delayed recall. Education was the main factor associated with the floor and ceiling effects, independent of region, sex, age at evaluation, and disease duration.ConclusionThe floor and ceiling effects are present in specific domains of the MoCA in Brazil, with a strong impact on education. Further adaptations of the MoCA structure for underrepresented populations may reduce these negative effects.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.