• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

《蒙特利尔认知评估的电子版本与纸质版本比较》

A Comparison of Electronic and Paper Versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.

机构信息

Departments of Speech-Language Pathology.

Occupational Therapy.

出版信息

Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2019 Jul-Sep;33(3):272-278. doi: 10.1097/WAD.0000000000000333.

DOI:10.1097/WAD.0000000000000333
PMID:31335458
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate older adults' performance on the paper and electronic Montreal Cognitive Assessment (eMoCA).

DESIGN

Repeated measures and correlational design.

PARTICIPANTS

A convenience sample of 40 adults over 65 years of age living in the community.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants completed the eMoCA and paper Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in a randomized order during 1 session. Participants reported their touchscreen experience and comfort and indicated their modality preferences.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were paper MoCA and eMoCA total and subscale scores. Secondary outcome measures included participants' reported touchscreen experience and comfort, as well as post-administration preferences.

RESULTS

A moderate statistically significant correlation was found between eMoCA and paper MoCA performance across all participants. Analysis comparing first administration modality only (eMoCA vs. paper MoCA) found no statistically significant difference in total scores; however, there was a statistically significant difference for the visuospatial/executive subscale, which required physical interaction with paper or the tablet. For this subscale, participants scored lower on the eMoCA versus paper MoCA. There was a statistically significant correlation between experience with touchscreen devices and performance on the eMoCA, but not between modality preference and performance.

CONCLUSION

Modality of administration can affect performance on cognitive assessments. Clinicians should consider individuals' level of touchscreen experience before selecting administration modality.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在调查老年人在纸质和电子蒙特利尔认知评估(eMoCA)上的表现。

设计

重复测量和相关设计。

参与者

社区中 40 名 65 岁以上的便利样本。

干预措施

参与者在一次会议中以随机顺序完成了 eMoCA 和纸质蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)。参与者报告了他们的触屏体验和舒适度,并表示了他们的偏好。

主要结果测量

主要结果测量是纸质 MoCA 和 eMoCA 的总分和子量表分数。次要结果测量包括参与者报告的触屏体验和舒适度,以及后评估的偏好。

结果

在所有参与者中,eMoCA 和纸质 MoCA 之间发现了中度统计学显著相关。仅比较首次管理模式的分析(eMoCA 与纸质 MoCA)发现总分无统计学显著差异;然而,对于需要与纸质或平板电脑进行物理交互的视觉空间/执行子量表存在统计学显著差异。对于这个子量表,参与者在 eMoCA 上的得分低于纸质 MoCA。触屏设备使用经验与 eMoCA 表现之间存在统计学显著相关性,但偏好与表现之间不存在相关性。

结论

管理模式会影响认知评估的表现。临床医生在选择管理模式之前,应考虑个体的触屏经验水平。

相似文献

1
A Comparison of Electronic and Paper Versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.《蒙特利尔认知评估的电子版本与纸质版本比较》
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2019 Jul-Sep;33(3):272-278. doi: 10.1097/WAD.0000000000000333.
2
Comparison of an Electronic and Paper-based Montreal Cognitive Assessment Tool.电子版与纸质版蒙特利尔认知评估工具的比较
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2015 Oct-Dec;29(4):325-9. doi: 10.1097/WAD.0000000000000069.
3
Comparing the Electronic and Standard Versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in an Outpatient Memory Disorders Clinic: A Validation Study.比较在门诊记忆障碍诊所中的蒙特利尔认知评估的电子版和标准版:一项验证研究。
J Alzheimers Dis. 2018;62(1):93-97. doi: 10.3233/JAD-170896.
4
Touchscreen tablet-based cognitive assessment versus paper-based assessments for traumatic brain injury.基于触摸屏平板电脑的认知评估与纸笔式评估在创伤性脑损伤中的比较。
NeuroRehabilitation. 2019;45(1):25-36. doi: 10.3233/NRE-192725.
5
Trajectory and variability characterization of the Montreal cognitive assessment in older adults.老年人蒙特利尔认知评估的轨迹和变异性特征。
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2018 Aug;30(8):993-998. doi: 10.1007/s40520-017-0865-x. Epub 2017 Nov 29.
6
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in a population-based sample of Turkish migrants living in Germany.基于德国生活的土耳其移民人群的蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)研究。
Aging Ment Health. 2019 Jan;23(1):30-37. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2017.1396577. Epub 2017 Nov 24.
7
Association of physical activity with the visuospatial/executive functions of the montreal cognitive assessment in patients with vascular cognitive impairment.身体活动与血管性认知障碍患者蒙特利尔认知评估的视空间/执行功能的相关性。
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013 Oct;22(7):e146-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2012.10.007. Epub 2012 Nov 13.
8
Introducing a new age-and-cognition-sensitive measurement for assessing spatial orientation using a landmark-less virtual reality navigational task.引入一种新的年龄和认知敏感测量方法,用于通过无地标虚拟现实导航任务评估空间定向。
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2017 Jul;70(7):1406-1419. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1187181. Epub 2016 Jun 10.
9
Evaluation of extent and pattern of neurocognitive functions in mild and moderate traumatic brain injury patients by using Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score as a screening tool: An observational study from India.采用蒙特利尔认知评估量表(MoCA)评分作为筛查工具评估轻度和中度创伤性脑损伤患者的神经认知功能的程度和模式:来自印度的一项观察性研究。
Asian J Psychiatr. 2019 Mar;41:60-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2018.08.007. Epub 2018 Aug 10.
10
Validation of the Standardized Touchscreen Assessment of Cognition with neurotypical adults.标准化触摸屏认知评估在神经典型成年人中的验证。
NeuroRehabilitation. 2017;40(3):411-420. doi: 10.3233/NRE-161428.

引用本文的文献

1
Validity Evidence of the TRIACOG-Online Administered In-Person to Adults Post Stroke.针对中风后成人的TRIACOG在线面对面管理的效度证据。
Brain Sci. 2025 Jul 10;15(7):737. doi: 10.3390/brainsci15070737.
2
Validity and usability for digital cognitive assessment tools to screen for mild cognitive impairment: a randomized crossover trial.用于筛查轻度认知障碍的数字认知评估工具的有效性和可用性:一项随机交叉试验。
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2025 Jun 11;22(1):132. doi: 10.1186/s12984-025-01665-1.
3
A comparison of electronic and paper versions of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Q-CN) screen.
简易轻度认知障碍(Q-CN)筛查的电子版本与纸质版本的比较。
J Alzheimers Dis Rep. 2025 May 30;9:25424823251343810. doi: 10.1177/25424823251343810. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
4
Results of a Codesign Process: A Cognition Screening Pathway for Inpatient and Outpatient Settings for Patients Who Are Facing or Have Undergone Lower Limb Amputation.共同设计流程的结果:针对面临或已接受下肢截肢的患者的住院和门诊认知筛查途径。
J Clin Med. 2024 Dec 4;13(23):7378. doi: 10.3390/jcm13237378.
5
The Potential of Automated Assessment of Cognitive Function Using Non-Neuroimaging Data: A Systematic Review.使用非神经影像学数据自动评估认知功能的潜力:一项系统综述。
J Clin Med. 2024 Nov 22;13(23):7068. doi: 10.3390/jcm13237068.
6
Psychometric Evaluation of a Tablet-Based Tool to Detect Mild Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: Mixed Methods Study.基于平板电脑的工具检测老年人轻度认知障碍的心理测量学评估:混合方法研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2024 Apr 19;26:e56883. doi: 10.2196/56883.
7
Remote assessment of cognition in Parkinson's disease and Cerebellar Ataxia: the MoCA test in English and Hebrew.帕金森病和小脑共济失调认知功能的远程评估:英文和希伯来文版的蒙特利尔认知评估量表测试
Front Hum Neurosci. 2024 Jan 8;17:1325215. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1325215. eCollection 2023.
8
Current State of Self-Administered Brief Computerized Cognitive Assessments for Detection of Cognitive Disorders in Older Adults: A Systematic Review.当前老年人自我管理的简短计算机认知评估用于检测认知障碍的现状:系统评价。
J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2021;8(3):267-276. doi: 10.14283/jpad.2021.11.