Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36196404›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2022

The validity and reliability of the Test of Memory Strategies among Italian healthy adults.

Maria Grazia Vaccaro, Marco Tullio Liuzza, Massimiliano Pastore, Nuria Paúl, Raquel Yubero, Andrea Quattrone, Gabriella Antonucci, Antonio Gambardella, Fernando Maestú

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Assessing of the Italian version of the Memory Strategy Test (TMS) in people with Parkinson disease: a preliminary descriptive psychometric study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023
    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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Maria Grazia Vaccaro *Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Græcia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Calabria, Italia.
Marco Tullio Liuzza *Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Græcia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Calabria, Italia.ORCID 0000-0001-6708-1253
Massimiliano PastoreDepartment of Developmental and Social Psychology, Padova University, Padova, Veneto, Italy.
Nuria PaúlDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Raquel YuberoDepartment of Neurology, Quirón Pozuelo Hospital, 28223, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid, Spain.
Andrea QuattroneDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Græcia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Calabria, Italia.
Gabriella AntonucciDepartment of Psychology, University of Roma "La Sapienza", Roma, Lazio, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0253-9029
Antonio GambardellaDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, "Magna Græcia" University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Calabria, Italia.
Fernando MaestúNetworking Research Center on Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Magna Graecia University · ITUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ESFondazione Santa Lucia · ITHospital Universitario Quirónsalud Madrid · ESUniversity of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Previous literature has shown that executive functions (EF) are related to performance in memory (M) tasks. Nevertheless, there is a shortage of psychometric tests that examine these two constructs simultaneously. The Test of Memory Strategies (TMS; previously validated in Spain and Portugal) could be a useful verbal learning task that evaluates these two constructs at once. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the TMS in an Italian adult sample. Method: One hundred twenty-one healthy volunteers (74 F, Mean age = 45.9 years old, SD = 20.4) who underwent a neuropsychological examination participated in this study. We conducted a Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the structural validity of the TMS. We conducted a latent variable analysis to examine convergent and discriminant validity of the TMS sub-scale scores reflecting executive functions and memory. We also examined the TMS reliability in terms of internal consistency through the McDonald's omega. Results: The CFA confirmed the expectation that the TMS-1 and TMS-2 subtests reflect a factor and that the TMS-3, TMS-4, and TMS-5 subtests reflect a different factor. This result is in line with the prediction that TMS-1 and TMS-2 require the use of executive functions and memory simultaneously, and therefore we called this factor executive functions (EF); whereas the TMS-3, TMS-4, and TMS-5 subtests require less involvement of executive functions, thus reflecting a construct that we named memory (M). The TMS subtests for EF and M showed convergent validity with the test scores using a traditional neuropsychological battery, assessing memory and executive functions separately. Finally, the reliability of the subtests was good. Conclusions: These preliminary findings suggest that TMS is a valid and reliable scale to simultaneously assess M and EF while among Italian healthy adults.

Indexed as

Executive FunctionAdultHumansItalyMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsPolypropylenesPolyurethanesReproducibility of ResultsPolypropylenespolyurethane-polypropylene compositePolyurethanesExecutive functionsItalian healthy adultsMemory strategiesNeuropsychological assessmentPsychometric validation

Identifiers

PMID36196404
PMCPMC9527021
OpenAlexW4298003011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.