ArticlePeerJ2022
The validity and reliability of the Test of Memory Strategies among Italian healthy adults.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Super Brain Yoga on Concentration, Memory, and Academic Progress in Nursing Students: A Quasi-Experimental Study.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2024Article
- Understanding the Episodic Memory and Executive Functioning Axis Impairment in MCI Patients: A Multicenter Study in Comparison with CSF Biomarkers.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- 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 · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.