A Danish version of the Oxford cognitive screen: a stroke-specific screening test as an alternative to the MoCA

ABSTRACT

Cognitive deficits are common following stroke and have many negative consequences. They must be identified to provide appropriate interventions and care. In Denmark, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a dementia screening tool, is commonly used to screen for cognitive deficits following stroke, despite its limitations in this context. This study aimed to make the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS), a stroke-specific cognitive screening tool, available in Danish and to provide population appropriate normative data. Additionally, the study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of the MoCA cutoff of 25/26 currently used in Denmark. A sample of healthy Danish participants aged 36–89 was assessed using the Danish OCS and MoCA. Mean performance and 5th percentile cutoffs were calculated for both tests. OCS results were similar to results from European studies. For the MoCA, 5th percentile corresponded to 22.35, suggesting that the cutoff currently used in Denmark is inappropriate.

KEYWORDS:

• Oxford cognitive screen
• cognitive screening
• stroke
• Montreal cognitive assessment
• norms

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Anne–Mette Guldberg, Annemarie Hilkjær Petersen and Thomas William Teasdale for helping with the translation of the Oxford Cognitive Screen. We also wish to thank Randi Starrfelt for all her support and Ann–Marie Low for providing helpful input.

Author contributions

R.J. Robotham was project manager for the research project. The study was designed in collaboration with N. Demeyere. Data collection was shared between R. Robotham and J. Riis. R. Robotham carried out data analysis and wrote the first draft of the paper. The manuscript was finished in close collaboration between the three authors.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was waived by the Regional Ethics Committee (VEK) of Greater Copenhagen because the project was not considered to fall under the regulations of a health research project (Protocol number: H-17012594). The research protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethical Review Board of the Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen (Approval number: IP-IERB/26082017).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

R.J. Robotham is supported by the Danish Council for Independent Research (Sapere Aude) under grant [DFF – 4180-00201]. N. Demeyere is supported by the Stroke Association UK [TSA LECT 15/02].