PhD/PsyD Neuropsych Screeners?

[otowngirl]

Hi again,

Does anyone have any neuropsych screeners that are available online? My internship site doesn't have a lot of neuro instruments and I'd like to at least find a couple of screeners to add to the list.

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

MoCA, SLUMS

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Second the MoCA. You can probably also find the 3MS or, for more impaired folks, the O-Log and Cog-Log.

 

[otowngirl]

Hospital admin doesn't want us to use the MoCA now that they require training. Ugh.

 

[Action_Potential]

...and no psychologists or trainees at this hospital have the incredibly rigorous, exhaustive training required to use the MoCA?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Seven_Costanza]

Hospital admin doesn't want us to use the MoCA now that they require training. Ugh.

I think the SLUMS is pretty good despite its unfortunate name.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Justanothergrad]

...and no psychologists or trainees at this hospital have the incredibly rigorous, exhaustive training required to use the MoCA?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Such a ridiculous prospect

 

[otowngirl]

I think each person is supposed to be individually trained on the MoCA and it's like $125 each. It's really obnoxious. Although I read on their website that the training is "mandatory" but you can use it without the training if you "accept the heightened risk of error" so I may try to convince my supervisor to do that

 

[WisNeuro]

Neuropsychologists and neuro trainees are exempt from MoCA training and certification. You just have to make some attestation on the website.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

And I'd definitely check with facility leadership/counsel about how the wording of the MoCA statement might impact liability, especially for non-neuropsychologists.

In addition to the 3MS (which probably takes a longer to administer than the MoCA) or SLUMS, you could look into the Alabama Brief Cognitive screen (ABCs), which (per its development study) is more sensitive than the MMSE.

 

[erg923]

I think each person is supposed to be individually trained on the MoCA and it's like $125 each. It's really obnoxious. Although I read on their website that the training is "mandatory" but you can use it without the training if you "accept the heightened risk of error" so I may try to convince my supervisor to do that

Is this a joke?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Is this a joke?

Nope. I imagine it might be based around the increased popularity after the whole presidential MoCA situation. Although to be fair, I've seen a lot of improperly administered MoCAs.

 

[PsyDr]

The Moca is stupid.

First, it’s only validated on 55+. Which means a lot of people haven’t read the manual.

Second, the DSM strongly recommends demographically adjusted norms which the Moca doesn’t have.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Rossetti et al. (2011) came out with some additional norms for the MoCA that incorporate age and education.

 

[Action_Potential]

Neuropsychologists and neuro trainees are exempt from MoCA training and certification. You just have to make some attestation on the website.

This is what I was referencing, something I assumed administrators or salient personnel would be aware of.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[PsyDr]

Rossetti et al. (2011) came out with some additional norms for the MoCA that incorporate age and education.

I’m aware that there are norms and studies that validate other populations. There is still a problem with the manual saying X and others saying Y. It’s like if someone created adult norms for the WISC.

Plus I’ve never seen those norms used. Or anyone acknowledging that there is a floor age.

 

[WisNeuro]

Plus I’ve never seen those norms used. Or anyone acknowledging that there is a floor age.

I use them all the time in notes where I call out other providers for misinterpreting scores. Looking at you OT.

 

[Complex Figure]

Rossetti et al. (2011) came out with some additional norms for the MoCA that incorporate age and education.

Also Carson, Leach, & Murphy (2017) did a meta-analysis of MoCA studies that indicate a cutoff of 23 is more sensitive than the Nasreddine et al. 2005 (which has an n=90) original recommended cutoff of 26. Also included MoCA used in multiple languages.