Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34159511›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2022

Troubled past: A critical psychometric assessment of the self-report Survey of Autobiographical Memory (SAM).

Roni Setton, Amber W Lockrow, Gary R Turner, R Nathan Spreng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Unfolding Nostalgia: Spatial Visualization, Nostalgia, and Well-Being.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Roni SettonMontreal Neurological Institute, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, McGill University, 3801 University St., Montreal, QC, H3A 2B4, Canada.
Amber W LockrowMontreal Neurological Institute, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, McGill University, 3801 University St., Montreal, QC, H3A 2B4, Canada.
Gary R TurnerDepartment of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
R Nathan SprengMontreal Neurological Institute, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, McGill University, 3801 University St., Montreal, QC, H3A 2B4, Canada. nathan.spreng@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1530-8916

Funding

Uncovering and Surveilling Financial Deception Risk in Aging (Diversity Supplement to 1R01AG057764-01A1)R01AG057764 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI EBNER, NATALIE C, SPRENG, ROBERT NATHAN · 2018 to 2022
$2.5M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG057764
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Survey of Autobiographical Memory (SAM) was designed as an easy-to-administer measure of self-perceived autobiographical memory (AM) recollection capacity. We provide a comprehensive psychometric evaluation of the SAM in younger and older adults. First, we evaluated the reliability of the SAM as a measure of self-perceived recollective capacity. Next, we tested whether the SAM was a valid measure of episodic and autobiographical memory performance, as assessed with widely used performance-based measures. Finally, we investigated associations between the SAM, cognitive measures and self-reported assessments of psychological functioning. The SAM demonstrated reliability as a self-report measure of perceived recollective capacity. High internal consistency was observed across subscales, with the exception of SAM-semantic. Evidence for independence among the subscales was mixed: SAM-episodic and SAM-semantic items showed poor correspondence with respective subscales. Good correspondence was observed between the future and spatial items and their SAM subscales. The SAM showed limited associations with AM performance as measured by the Autobiographical Interview (AI), yet was broadly associated with self-reported AI event vividness. SAM scores were weakly associated with performance-based memory measures and were age-invariant, inconsistent with known age effects on declarative memory. Converging evidence indicated that SAM-episodic and SAM-semantic subscales are not independent and should not be interpreted as specific measures of episodic or semantic memory. The SAM was robustly associated with self-efficacy, suggesting an association with confidence in domain general self-report abilities. We urge caution in the use and interpretation of the SAM as a measure of AM, pending revision and further psychometric validation.

Indexed as

Memory, EpisodicAgedHumansMental RecallPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportAgingAutobiographical memoryIndividual differencesSelf-report

Identifiers

PMID34159511
PMCPMC8692492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.