Development of cognitive screening test for the severely hearing impaired: Hearing‐impaired <scp>M</scp>o<scp>CA</scp>

Lin, Vincent; Chung, Janet; Callahan, Brandy L.; Smith, Lillian Eugenia; Gritters, Nils; Chen, Joseph M.; Black, Sandra E.; Masellis, Mario

doi:10.1002/lary.26590

Cited by 92 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The HI‐MoCA contains all of the components of the standard MoCA, but the instructions and test stimuli are presented through a PowerPoint presentation. Participants are provided with response worksheets that correspond with the instructions and tasks presented on the PowerPoint presentation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is evidence that CI users perform better on certain tests, such as the numbers reversed task, when it is administered in the visual modality rather than the auditory modality . Lin et al created the HI‐MoCA, where all instructions are visually presented through a PowerPoint presentation and participants respond to the test items on worksheets or verbally. Per the protocol by Lin et al, verbal responses are prompted only for the serial subtraction and verbal fluency components, and written responses are obtained for all other HI‐MoCA items (see Table for a full description of the tasks).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All participants in our study were administered two versions of the MoCA in a randomized order: The first version followed all of the recommended administration procedures while the second version followed a modified administration procedure that presented all of the instructions and test materials visually on a PowerPoint presentation . We hypothesized that CI users would perform better on the HI‐MoCA compared with the standard MoCA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Performance on the standard and hearing‐impaired Montreal Cognitive Assessment in cochlear implant users

Parada

Hillyer

Parbery‐Clark

2020

Int J Geriat Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Commonly used cognitive screening tools were not originally developed for patients with hearing loss (HL) and rely heavily on the ability to hear the instructions and test stimuli. Recently, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was modified for use with hearing‐impaired populations (ie, HI‐MoCA). In order to investigate the clinical utility of the HI‐MoCA, we assessed performance between the standard MoCA and HI‐MoCA among postlingually deafened cochlear implant (CI) users. Methods We administered the standard MoCA and HI‐MoCA to 21 CI users and compared their performance. We assessed differences in pass/fail status when items from the attention and language sections and the delayed recall task were removed. Results There was no significant difference in performance between the standard MoCA and HI‐MoCA. Participants scored higher on both test versions when the delayed recall task was removed. Participants also performed better on the delayed recall task on the HI‐MoCA than on the standard MoCA. Conclusions While our findings suggest that the modality of presentation for the MoCA does not influence overall performance for postlingually deafened CI users, visual presentation of stimuli impacted performance on delayed recall. Furthermore, irrespective of presentation modality, our participants scored higher on both MoCA versions when the delayed recall task was removed. Clinically, modifications to the presentation of the MoCA might not be necessary for CI users; however, clinicians should be aware that the delayed recall task is inherently harder for these patients.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance on the standard and hearing‐impaired Montreal Cognitive Assessment in cochlear implant users

Parada

Hillyer

Parbery‐Clark

2020

Int J Geriat Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to the limited consensus on patient presentations that should prompt screening and referral for CI, there was no consensus on the best screening assessment to use. A plethora of research has been conducted on the relationship between CI and HL using a variety of CI screening and diagnostic tools, yet only one study to our knowledge has been conducted to attempt establishment of validation of an instrument designed specifically for patients with HL . Though the audiology literature has suggested that the MoCA may be the best CI screening tool to use for adults with ARHL, mounting evidence points toward the need for development of tools specifically validated for this population .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent reports from the audiology and psychiatry literature have reviewed and summarized the two most well‐known and used cognitive screening tests for the general community and the subset of those with HL, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) or the Mini‐Mental Status Exam (MMSE); however, dozens more screening tools have been used in the general population . Additionally, work is being put into the validation of CI screening tools made specifically for patients with ARHL, such as the HI‐MOCA . Still, there have been no published guidelines to assist providers in determining the appropriate clinical setting or presentation of a patient with ARHL that should prompt CI screening.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practices and perceptions of cognitive assessment for adults with age‐related hearing loss

Raymond

Lee

Schader

et al. 2019

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To investigate the landscape of cognitive impairment (CI) screening for adults with age‐related hearing loss (ARHL) among otolaryngologists and audiologists. To identify provider factors and patient characteristics that impact rates of CI screening and referral. Methods A 15 question online survey was sent to members of the Georgia Society of Otolaryngology (GSO), Georgia Academy of Audiology (GAA), American Otological Society and American Neurotology Society (AOS/ANS), and posted on the web forum for two hearing disorders special interest groups within the American‐Speech‐Language‐Hearing Association (ASHA). Responses were collected anonymously. Chi‐square tests were used to compare responses. Results Of the 66 included respondents, 61% (n = 40) were otolaryngologists and 35% (n = 23) were audiologists. Respondents were significantly more likely to refer patients for CI assessment than to screen (64% vs 21%, respectively, P < .001). The complaint of a neurological symptom, such as memory loss, would prompt screening or referral for only 27.3% (n = 18) and 51.52% (n = 34) of respondents, respectively. Forty‐two percent (n = 28) of respondents suggested CI screening with the MMSE vs 20% (n = 13) with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Conclusions Despite recommendations for cognitive assessment in high‐risk populations, such as older adults with ARHL, the practice of CI screening and referral is not yet commonplace among otolaryngologists and audiologists. These providers have a unique opportunity to assess adults with ARHL for CI and ensure appropriate referral. Level of Evidence 5

show abstract

Hearing and Quality-of-Life Outcomes After Cochlear Implantation in Adult Hearing Aid Users 65 Years or Older

Wick

Kallogjeri

McJunkin

et al. 2020

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

for the CI532 Study Group IMPORTANCE Hearing loss, especially moderate to severe forms, has the potential to negatively affect an individual's physical, social, emotional, and cognitive well-being. Moreover, having ineffective binaural hearing increases difficulty understanding speech in noise and leads to a greater degree of social isolation and loneliness and a reduced quality of life (QoL).OBJECTIVE To explore the audiometric and holistic effects of cochlear implantation in a group of adults 65 years or older compared with an optimized bilateral hearing aid condition. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis ad hoc secondary analysis of a prospective, single-subject, repeated-measures nonrandomized clinical trial included 13 cochlear implantation centers across the United States. Participants 65 years or older with postlingual bilateral moderate-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss with aided Consonant-Vowel Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word scores in quiet of 40% or less in the ear to undergo implantation and 50% or less in the contralateral ear were included in the analysis. Baseline QoL testing was performed after 1 month of optimized bilateral hearing aid use.

show abstract

Development of cognitive screening test for the severely hearing impaired: Hearing‐impaired MoCA

Abstract: 1b. Laryngoscope, 127:S4-S11, 2017.

Cited by 92 publications

References 25 publications

Performance on the standard and hearing‐impaired Montreal Cognitive Assessment in cochlear implant users

Performance on the standard and hearing‐impaired Montreal Cognitive Assessment in cochlear implant users

Practices and perceptions of cognitive assessment for adults with age‐related hearing loss

Hearing and Quality-of-Life Outcomes After Cochlear Implantation in Adult Hearing Aid Users 65 Years or Older

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About