ArticleGerontology2021
The Factor Structure of Items Assessing Subjective Memory: Between-Persons and Within-Persons across Time.
Article in Gerontology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subjective memory measures: Metamemory questionnaires currently in use.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024Review
- Does the association between objective and subjective memory vary by age among healthy older adults?Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognitionArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCurrent understanding of the psychometric properties of items intended to assess the multidimensional construct of subjective memory (SM) is limited, as longitudinal studies of aging commonly use single items or brief sets of items to assess SM. Investigating how SM items cluster within individuals over time would increase the understanding of how combining these items impacts their utility as an early indicator of cognitive change in the aging trajectory. To address this need, the current study examined the factor structure of a brief set of SM items in an existing longitudinal study focused on cognitive aging at both the within-person and between-person levels.
methodsData were drawn from the Einstein Aging Study, a longitudinal cohort study of aging (N = 1,239, Mage = 77.51, SD = 5.03; 69.50% white; 24.27% black; 6.23% other). Community-dwelling older adults from an urban area of New York City were interviewed annually. At each wave, participants responded to 6 items intended to assess SM. Items assessed participants' perceived memory decline as well as current memory ability. Multilevel exploratory factor analyses examined which factor solution best fit the data at between-person and within-person levels.
resultsFactor structure of the SM items varied at the two levels. At the within-person level, two factors emerged, whereas at the between-person level, a single factor best represented the SM items. Items assessing perceived declines in memory functioning tended to have similar trajectories, while items assessing current memory ability were less related to change over time.
conclusionItems appeared to assess two different dimensions of SM when examining within-person changes in SM across time; however, the item structure suggested no other items covaried systematically within persons over time. In contrast to the conceptualization of SM as a multidimensional construct, our findings suggest that when measuring SM between individuals, SM items tend to capture a single dimension underlying SM. This may be due to the long retrospection period of items assessing perceived memory ability. A single item assessing perceived memory decline in older adults without evidence of objective cognitive impairment may be sufficient to monitor memory change in clinical or research settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.