SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Development and Preliminary Validation of ORCA-PD, an Online Rapid Cognitive Assessment for Parkinson Disease: Mixed Methods Study.

J Med Internet Res · 2026-06-08

DOI: 10.2196/90057PMID: 42258791

Open accessresearch-article; Validation Study; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundTraditional in-person neuropsychological tests for Parkinson disease (PD) lack accessibility, scalability, and PD specificity. Mobility impairments hinder access to in-person assessments, and long waiting times for expert evaluation limit scalability. Common tools for cognitive screening, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, are generic and not specific to PD.ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to address these challenges by leveraging the internet. This study aimed to develop a sensitive tool to detect cognitive impairments in early- to mid-stage PD in an accessible and scalable manner.MethodsWe developed the Online Rapid Cognitive Assessment for Parkinson's Disease (ORCA-PD), a brief (~15 min), fully self-administered tool, tailored to detect PD-specific impairments remotely. In a cross-sectional study, 112 participants from diverse geographical locations completed the ORCA-PD and a usability questionnaire. Task selection for ORCA-PD was guided by meta-analyses and comprehensive reviews, which demonstrated medium-to-high sensitivity to PD compared to healthy controls.ResultsParticipants from more than 30 geographical locations showed a 93% (135/145) completion rate, with median usability ratings of 4 to 5 (IQRs 0-1) out of 5, indicating strong usability across a diverse sample. The ORCA-PD score significantly correlated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (ρ=0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.64; PConclusionsORCA-PD demonstrated usability and preliminary validity. ORCA-PD offers an accessible, scalable, and PD-sensitive cognitive screening test that could complement traditional in-person, supervised tools.

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.