SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Remote assessment of cognition in Parkinson's disease and Cerebellar Ataxia: the MoCA test in English and Hebrew.

Front Hum Neurosci · 2024-01-08

DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1325215PMID: 38259338

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

There is a critical need for accessible neuropsychological testing for basic research and translational studies worldwide. Traditional in-person neuropsychological studies are inherently difficult to conduct because testing requires the recruitment and participation of individuals with neurological conditions. Consequently, studies are often based on small sample sizes, are highly time-consuming, and lack diversity. To address these challenges, in the last decade, the utilization of remote testing platforms has demonstrated promising results regarding the feasibility and efficiency of collecting patient data online. Herein, we tested the validity and generalizability of remote administration of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. We administered the MoCA to English and Hebrew speakers from three different populations: Parkinson's disease, Cerebellar Ataxia, and healthy controls via video conferencing. First, we found that the online MoCA scores do not differ from traditional in-person studies, demonstrating convergent validity. Second, the MoCA scores of both our online patient groups were lower than controls, demonstrating construct validity. Third, we did not find differences between the two language versions of the remote MoCA, supporting its generalizability to different languages and the efficiency of collecting binational data (USA and Israel). Given these results, future studies can utilize the remote MoCA, and potentially other remote neuropsychological tests to collect data more efficiently across multiple different patient populations, language versions, and nations.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.