Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34512292›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2021

Validation of the Prospective Memory Concerns Questionnaire (PMCQ).

Nicole Sugden, Matt Thomas, Michael Kiernan, Michele Wilesmith

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06656637 (To Drill or Not to Drill), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
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.

NCT06656637 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

To Drill or Not to Drill: Do Memory Drills Help Strengthen Prospective Memory and Decrease Veterans' Concerns About Prospective Memory Problems?

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, Los AngelesRan2024 to 2026Enrolled75ConditionsMemory DeficitArmsMemory Drilling, Compensatory Strategies, Cognitive Processing Therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nicole SugdenSchool of Psychology, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia.
Matt ThomasSchool of Psychology, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia.
Michael KiernanSchool of Psychology, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia.
Michele WilesmithSchool of Psychology, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia.
Charles Sturt University · AUWestern NSW Local Health District · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prospective memory (PM), the ability to remember to complete intended tasks, is essential for successfully completing activities of daily living. PM impairments are common in people with neuropathology such as acquired brain injury and dementia. These PM impairments affect individuals' capabilities in key aspects of daily living including their health, safety, and independence. The Prospective Memory Concerns Questionnaire (PMCQ) was designed as a self-report measure to understand individuals' concerns about their memory. This questionnaire may help identify issues with PM which in turn may assist clinicians in the targeted implementation of memory compensation strategies. The PMCQ was developed using Rasch and classical test methodologies, with subscales measuring frequency of forgetting behaviors, memory concerns, and retrieval failures. The current study aimed to confirm the factor structure of the PMCQ for use in adults in the general population. The study also aimed to examine relationships between the PMCQ and naturalistic performance-based measures of PM to determine how the self-report PMCQ could be used in conjunction with performance-based measures. A community dwelling sample of 558 adults completed the PMCQ, an event-based naturalistic PM task, and time-based naturalistic PM task. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) indicated that a higher order model with three subscales containing 35 items produced acceptable fit [RMSEA = 0.056 (90% CI 0.054, 0.060), SRMR = 0.062, CFI = 0.915, TLI = 0.909] The PMCQ demonstrated good internal consistency (total α = 0.95, subscales: α = 0.88-0.89). The Forgetting Behaviors subscale significantly correlated with performance on the event-based naturalistic PM task (

Indexed as

memory for intentionsprospective memoryquestionnaireself-reportvalidation

Identifiers

PMID34512292
PMCPMC8427764
OpenAlexW3196834886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.