Validation of the Sinhala version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in screening for dementia.

35Citations
Citations of this article
87Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

To validate the Sinhala version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale in screening for dementia. The MoCA translation and cultural adaptation was carried using a combined qualitative and quantitative approach. Sample size was calculated to detect a targeted sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 85%. Sample consisted of 49 participants diagnosed with dementia of the Alzheimer's type (AD) according to DSM-IV criteria and 49 normal controls (NC) aged ≥50 years. All subjects were administered the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and MoCA Sinhala version (MoCA-S). Concurrent validity was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients between the MoCA-S scores and MMSE scores. Criterion validity was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Mean MoCA scores between NC (26.71, SD 2.4) and AD group (16.78, SD 5.9) were significantly different (t=10.8, p<0.001). Cronbach's alpha of 0.818 indicated good internal consistency. Attention (digit span, sustained attention, and the serial 7 calculation task) had the highest discriminant ability followed by visuospatial skills (trail making, cube drawing and clock drawing). Naming had poor discriminant ability. There was a high, positive correlation between MoCA-S total scores and MMSE total scores. (r=0.907, p<0.001). The area under the ROC curve was 0.975 (95%CI 0.94-1.0) for the MoCA and 0.928 (95% CI 0.87-0.98) for MMSE. A cut-off value of 24 provided the best balance between sensitivity (98.0 7%) and specificity (79.6 %). MoCA-S is a valid and reliable instrument which can be used as a brief screening instrument for dementia in Sri Lanka.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Karunaratne, S., Hanwella, R., & de Silva, V. (2011). Validation of the Sinhala version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in screening for dementia. The Ceylon Medical Journal, 56(4), 147–153. https://doi.org/10.4038/cmj.v56i4.3892

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free