Memory Questionnaires

MEMORY QUESTIONNAIRES 1
9 Subjective memory measures: An overview of three types of memory questionnaires
10 currently in use
11
12 Yashoda Gopi† & Christopher R. Madan
13 School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
14
15
16
†
17 Corresponding author.
18 Yashoda Gopi
19 School of Psychology, University Park
20 University of Nottingham
21 Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.

22 Email: yashoda.gopi@nottingham.ac.uk
23 Word count: 10,180
24
25
26 Abstract
27 Subjective memory evaluation is important for assessing memory abilities and complaints,
28 alongside objective measures. In both research and clinical settings, questionnaires are used
29 to examine memory beliefs and knowledge, perceived memory ability, and memory
30 complaints. Although they provide a structured measure of self-reported memory, there is
31 some debate as to whether subjective evaluation accurately reflects memory abilities.
32 Specifically, the disconnect between subjective and objective memory measures remains a
33 longstanding issue within the field. Thus, it is essential to evaluate the benefits and
34 limitations of questionnaires that are currently in use. This review encompasses three
35 categories of subjective memory questionnaires: metamemory, self-efficacy, and complaints.
36 Factors influencing self-evaluation of memory including knowledge and beliefs about
37 memory, ability to evaluate memory, recent metamemory experiences, and affect are
38 examined. The relationship between subjective and objective memory measures is explored
39 and considerations for future development and use of memory questionnaires are provided.
40
41 Keywords: metamemory; memory self-efficacy; memory complaints; memory beliefs;
42 memory evaluation
43
44 Subjective memory measures: An overview of three types of memory questionnaires

45 currently in use
46 Complaints of memory problems in daily life can prompt evaluation of memory abilities
47 using subjective and objective memory measures (Hendriks et al., 2002; Illman et al., 2015;
48 Schmidt et al., 2001; Sunderland et al., 1983). Objective measures include recognition or
49 recall tests that simulate memory-demanding situations to evaluate learning and memory
50 abilities, or neuropsychological test batteries designed to assess multiple aspects of cognition
51 (Beaudoin & Desrichard, 2017; Garcia et al., 1998; McMillan, 1984; Rowell et al., 2016;
52 Snitz et al., 2015). Although these measures are commonly used in examining and diagnosing
53 memory decline and deficits, objective measures alone may not sufficiently capture some
54 aspects of everyday memory demands (Illman et al., 2015; McMillan, 1984; Sander et al.,
55 2018; Sunderland et al., 1983; Troyer & Rich, 2002). Several factors such as knowledge of
56 memory processes, beliefs about memory ability and efficacy, self-awareness, recent
57 metamemory experiences, personality traits, and affect may influence motivation and
58 performance on memory tasks and contribute to memory evaluations (Berry et al., 1989;
59 Bouazzaoui et al., 2020; Cavanaugh et al., 1998; Cavuoto et al., 2021; Clare et al., 2010;
60 Gilewski & Zelinski, 1986; Hultsch et al., 1985; Sehulster, 1981; Spano et al., 2020).
61 Subjective memory measures may better capture these differences as individuals can report
62 their perceptions of memory processes and their abilities in everyday life that are not included
63 in objective measures.
64
65 Subjective memory evaluations can be obtained through self or other reports using
66 questionnaires that capture details of knowledge and beliefs about memory, perceptions of
67 memory abilities, everyday memory successes and failures, feelings about memory, and
68 complaints about memory (Crook & Larrabee, 1990; Gilewski & Zelinski, 1986; Herrmann,
69 1982; Sunderland et al., 1983). Memory questionnaires are often used in research and
70 clinical settings as screening measures, to examine the relationship between beliefs and
71 objective performance, or to aid in neurological diagnosis (Burmester et al., 2015; Crook &
72 Larrabee, 1990; Helmstaedter & Elger, 2000; Herrmann, 1982; Kinsella et al., 2009; Van
73 Bergen et al., 2010). However, subjective measures remain under scrutiny for a variety of
74 reasons, including validity, length, influence on self-perceptions, and limited direct
75 connection to objective memory measures (Burmester et al., 2015, 2017; Gilewski &
76 Zelinski, 1986; Herrmann, 1982). In this review, we outline validated memory questionnaires
77 that are currently in use and explore factors that influence subjective evaluation, the
78 connection between subjective and objective measures, and future considerations for
79 development and use of memory questionnaires.
80
81 Three categories of memory ability questionnaires are examined here: metamemory, memory
82 self-efficacy, and memory complaints. Metamemory refers to an individual’s knowledge of
83 memory processes and awareness of their own memory functioning (Dixon & Hultsch, 1983;
84 Garcia et al., 1998; Hertzog et al., 1989; Hultsch et al., 1987). Memory self-efficacy is the
85 extent to which an individual believes they are capable of using memory effectively in
86 different situations (Beaudoin & Desrichard, 2011; Cavanaugh et al., 1998; Hertzog et al.,
87 1989; Lineweaver & Hertzog, 1998). Memory complaints generally involve reports of
88 forgetting instances or difficulties in remembering in everyday life (Gilewski & Zelinski,
89 1986; Hall et al., 2009; Hertzog & Pearman, 2013; Ponds & Jolles, 1996a).
90
91 Additional types of memory questionnaires include those targeted to specific patient groups
92 such as acquired brain injury and autobiographical memory questionnaires examining past
93 personal experiences (Davis et al., 1995; Man et al., 2011; Palombo et al., 2013; Vannucci et
94 al., 2020). Apart from the structured questionnaire format, subjective memory evaluation can
95 be administered in interviews, open-ended questionnaires, or questionnaires designed for use
96 in specific studies (Burmester et al., 2015; Crumley et al., 2014; Kahn et al., 1975). In a
97 different capacity, individuals may be asked to make task-specific predictions of their
98 expected performance on a forthcoming memory task, or to evaluate their performance on a
99 recently completed task (Berry et al., 1989; Bruce et al., 1982; Gervasio & Blusewicz, 1988;
100 Pearman & Trujillo, 2013). While these additional subjective measures are valuable
101 assessments, they are beyond the scope of the current review, which focuses on structured
102 memory ability and complaints questionnaires currently in use across research and clinical
103 settings.
104
105 Memory Questionnaires

106 Metamemory Questionnaires
107 Metamemory encompasses knowledge about memory processes and mechanisms in addition
108 to beliefs about one’s own memory abilities, strengths and weaknesses (Bruce et al., 1982;
109 Garcia et al., 1998; Hertzog et al., 1989). Metamemory questionnaires include multiple
110 subscales to capture various characteristics of memory including remembering and forgetting,
111 evaluations of abilities, and general knowledge of memory functioning. Questionnaires
112 currently in use are shown in Table 1. See sample items in Appendix A.
113
114 One of the most widely used metamemory questionnaires is the Metamemory in Adulthood
115 Questionnaire (MIA), which was developed to capture multiple aspects of memory that are
116 relevant to activities in everyday life for adults of all ages (Dixon & Hultsch, 1983). The MIA
117 is used to examine the interrelationships between metamemory dimensions and the
118 relationship between subjective evaluations and objective memory performance with some
119 revised versions developed for different populations (Campelo et al., 2016; Hertzog et al.,
120 1989; McDonough et al., 2019; Ponds & Jolles, 1996b). Another prevalent metamemory
121 questionnaire is the Memory Functioning Questionnaire (MFQ), derived from the
122 Metamemory Questionnaire, which was developed earlier by the same researchers to examine
123 awareness of memory abilities and memory failures in healthy adults (Gilewski, Zelinski, &
124 Schaie, 1990; Zelinski et al., 1980). The MFQ is frequently used in research and clinical
125 settings, with either the comprehensive test employed for metamemory analyses or individual
126 scales selected as necessary (Cavanaugh et al., 1998; Hülür et al., 2018; Payne et al., 2017;
127 Yoon et al., 2019).
128
129 In contrast to the MIA, which includes a mixture of personal and general beliefs, Lineweaver
130 and Hertzog (1998) developed two measures to separate beliefs adults hold about their own
131 memory, with the Personal Beliefs about Memory Inventory (PBMI) from beliefs they hold
132 about the memory ability of people in the general population, using the General Beliefs about
133 Memory Inventory (GBMI). Computerised versions of the PBMI and GBMI were developed
134 to increase ease-of-access and reduce response bias related to stereotypes as respondents may
135 be more truthful in anonymous responding, and are used in developmental research
136 examining age-related beliefs about memory (Cavallini et al., 2013; Hertzog et al., 2014; Irak
137 & Çapan, 2018). The most recently developed metamemory questionnaire, the Multifactorial
138 Memory Questionnaire (MMQ), was created to tap into specific aspects of metamemory such
139 as contentment, ability, and strategy use for older adults (Troyer & Rich, 2002). Use of the
140 MMQ is common across aging and patient group studies (Fort et al., 2004; Illman et al.,
141 2015; Kinsella et al., 2009; van der Werf & Vos, 2011).
142
143 Shared characteristics across metamemory questionnaires are summarised in Table 1. General
144 memory ability refers to an individual’s belief about their ‘overall’ memory and is usually a
145 single question regarding general memory problems (e.g., MFQ general rating scale),
146 personal ability, or global memory ability of others (Gilewski, Zelinski, & Schaie, 1990;
147 Mogle et al., 2020). In contrast, memory self-efficacy is used to evaluate ability to effectively
148 remember in specific situations (e.g., PBMI specific memory ability scale) (Lineweaver &
149 Hertzog, 1998). Similarly, the frequency of forgetting characteristic examines the extent to
150 which memory mistakes occur in daily life situations (e.g., MMQ Ability scale) (Troyer &
151 Rich, 2002).
152
153 To examine memory change over time, questions are either in the context of retrospective
154 change in comparison to a previous timepoint (e.g., MFQ retrospective functioning scale), or
155 expected prospective change (e.g., PBMI prospective change scale) (Gilewski, Zelinski, &
156 Schaie, 1990; Lineweaver & Hertzog, 1998). Similarly, memory control questions indicate
157 the extent to which an individual believes that their memory or memory in general is
158 unchangeable or malleable (e.g., GBMI control scale) (Lachman et al., 1995; Lineweaver &
159 Hertzog, 1998). Finally, the strategy use/mnemonic characteristic refers to use of memory
160 strategies (e.g., MIA strategy scale) including internal memory aids such as mnemonics, or
161 external aids such as calendars (Bouazzaoui et al., 2010; Dixon & Hultsch, 1983). These
162 shared characteristics highlight the multidimensional nature of memory and the importance of
163 multiple scales to effectively assess knowledge and perceptions of individual ability (Dixon
164 & Hultsch, 1983; Mogle et al., 2017, 2021).
165
166 Several metamemory questionnaires include unique additional characteristics. The MIA
167 measures knowledge of basic memory processes, the reciprocal interaction between emotion
168 and memory, frequency of participating in cognitively-engaging activities, and the perceived
169 importance of good memory performance (Dixon & Hultsch, 1983). In contrast, the MFQ
170 additionally examines perceived seriousness of forgetting in specific situations (Gilewski,
171 Zelinski, & Schaie, 1990). On the other hand, the PBMI includes a relative standing rating
172 where respondents are asked to compare their general memory ability to all adults of their
173 own age and all adults of all ages (Lineweaver & Hertzog, 1998). Finally, the MMQ contains
174 a contentment scale, measuring feelings about one’s own memory (Troyer & Rich, 2002).
175 These additional characteristics are important to consider when selecting a questionnaire to
176 use. For example, if the seriousness of forgetting is an essential aspect of investigation, the
177 MFQ would be appropriate whereas others that do not have this aspect may not be as
178 beneficial. Moreover, these additional characteristics support the argument that the
179 multidimensional construct of metamemory has yet to be clearly dissected into its
180 components (Clare et al., 2010; Hultsch et al., 1987; Mogle et al., 2021).
181
182 Metamemory questionnaires are valuable for addressing the multidimensional aspects of
183 memory and the variety of items may allow for better correlations with memory performance
184 on objective tasks compared to if single or open-ended questions are used (Crumley et al.,
185 2014; Dixon & Hultsch, 1983; Troyer & Rich, 2002). However, metamemory questionnaires
186 have been criticised for their length which may deter use with certain populations (Mogle et
187 al., 2021; Van Bergen et al., 2010). For example, the widely-used MIA and MFQ are time-
188 consuming which may result in fatigue and consequently incomplete or inaccurate responses
189 for older adults or individuals with memory impairments (Gilewski & Zelinski, 1986;
190 McDonough et al., 2019; Troyer & Rich, 2002; Van Bergen et al., 2010). For this reason,
191 some metamemory questionnaires have been reduced to shorter versions or specific
192 subscales, e.g., the Frequency of Forgetting-10 Scale derived from the MFQ to retain
193 essential aspects while reducing the length (McDonough et al., 2019; Zelinski & Gilewski,
194 2004). In contrast, the MMQ was designed with consideration for the length and potential
195 clinical applicability and as such, has been successfully applied with clinical populations
196 (Illman et al., 2015; Troyer & Rich, 2002).
197
198 Another concern is the combination of global and specific memory questions. When
199 responding to global memory questions, respondents may rely on generalisations or
200 stereotypes about memory whereas they may consider distinct past experiences when
201 responding to questions about specific situations, resulting in different levels of specificity
202 when evaluating memory ability (Cavanaugh et al., 1998; Mogle et al., 2020). This can
203 potentially result in overgeneralisations of memory ability or inaccurate recall of past events
204 depending on the order of the questions (Cyr & Anderson, 2019). In summary, metamemory
205 questionnaires provide useful insights into the multidimensional aspects of memory but can
206 be time-consuming and include various question types and thus require consideration
207 regarding the target respondents’ ability to complete the entire measure and how question
208 types may influence self-evaluations and responses.
209
210 Self-Efficacy Questionnaires
211 Beliefs about one’s own memory ability in various situations has been labelled memory self-
212 efficacy, which is distinguished from the knowledge about memory processes by personal
213 agency in different circumstances (Beaudoin & Desrichard, 2011; Cavanaugh et al., 1998;
214 Hertzog et al., 1989). Memory self-efficacy questionnaires include ratings of one’s ability to
215 remember information in various contexts. Questionnaires currently in use are shown in
216 Table 2. See sample items in Appendix B.
217
218 One of the early established memory self-efficacy questionnaires is the Inventory of Memory
219 Experiences, which was revised by the same researchers to the Shortened Inventory of
220 Memory Experiences (SIME) to assess daily forgetting and remembering instances
221 (Herrmann, 1982; Herrmann & Neisser, 1978). The SIME has subsequently been used to
222 examine memory self-efficacy beliefs in adults across all ages and in patient populations
223 (Cutler & Brăgaru, 2017; Gervasio & Blusewicz, 1988; Ryan, 1992). In contrast to the SIME,
224 the Squire Subjective Memory Questionnaire (SSMQ) was initially developed to differentiate
225 memory complaints from before and after electroconvulsive therapy to treat depression, but
226 has since been adapted for more general use (Squire et al., 1979; Van Bergen et al., 2010).
227 The SSMQ has recently been used in examining memory trust and compliance with false
228 narratives (Kuczek et al., 2018; Van Bergen et al., 2010).
229
230 A widely-used memory self-efficacy questionnaire is the Subjective Memory Questionnaire
231 (SMQ), which was created to assess self-report of memory skills regarding real-life memory
232 tasks for adults (Bennett‐Levy & Powell, 1980). The SMQ is often used across a variety of
233 studies with different populations, yet correlations with objective memory performance have
234 been mixed (Bennett‐Levy & Powell, 1980; Clark & Maguire, 2020; Gigi et al., 2020;
235 Helmstaedter & Elger, 2000). Another well-established self-efficacy questionnaire, the
236 Memory Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (MSEQ), was designed to examine developmental and
237 individual differences in self-evaluated memory ability (Berry et al., 1989; West et al., 1984).
238 The MSEQ is a common measure among studies examining age-related memory self-efficacy
239 (Beaudoin, 2018; Beaudoin & Desrichard, 2017; Cavuoto et al., 2021; Ossher et al., 2013).
240 To examine a particular aspect of memory self-efficacy, the Memory Controllability
241 Inventory (MCI) was developed to assess perceptions of memory controllability and current
242 memory ability in training studies (Lachman et al., 1995). As such, the MCI is used in
243 memory training and aging studies to examine memory control beliefs (Cherry et al., 2019;
244 Thana-Udom et al., 2021).

245
246 All memory self-efficacy questionnaires include the ability to remember characteristic (Table
247 2). Ability to remember items either examine perceived memory ability for specific
248 information (e.g., phone numbers), past actions (e.g., whether someone locked the door), or
249 hypothetical questions with created scenarios (Bennett‐Levy & Powell, 1980; Berry et al.,
250 1989; Riege, 1983). However, there are differences between the target items or situations
251 across the questionnaires including variations in question framing such as I statements, e.g.,
252 “I remember conversations I had with other people”, strength of memory questions, e.g.,
253 “How good is your memory for shopping lists”, and ability to recall questions, e.g., “Can you
254 remember the price of an item in in the supermarket from one aisle to the next” (Bennett‐
255 Levy & Powell, 1980; Riege, 1983; Sehulster, 1981). There are also differences in response
256 types including agree-disagree, always-never, or for the MSEQ, yes/no responses with
257 confidence judgements (Bennett‐Levy & Powell, 1980; Berry et al., 1989; Riege, 1983).
258
259 Several questionnaires also include a frequency of forgetting characteristic, which focuses on
260 how often memory mistakes occur for specific items such as names or in situations such as
261 where someone placed an item earlier (Bennett‐Levy & Powell, 1980; Sehulster, 1981;
262 Zelinski & Gilewski, 2004). Response options to frequency of forgetting questions are
263 generally in always-never Likert format (Bennett‐Levy & Powell, 1980; Sehulster, 1981).
264 Although shared characteristics exist across self-efficacy questionnaires, they may be framed
265 differently and may therefore result in different considerations when responding (Mogle et
266 al., 2020).
267
268 Self-efficacy questionnaires differ in their current use, development, and additional
269 characteristics. Although the SSMQ was initially designed to examine memory complaints in
270 relation to electroconvulsive therapy, it was transformed into a trait memory distrust measure,
271 deviating from the usual context of examining memory ability related to aging or memory
272 ability in specific situations (Squire et al., 1979; Van Bergen et al., 2010). This was based on
273 the assumption that individuals who report subjective memory problems may be more
274 suggestible and compliant with false recollections (Van Bergen et al., 2009, 2010). However,
275 the SSMQ retains questions that are comparable to those in the other self-efficacy
276 questionnaires (Appendix B). In comparing two self-efficacy questionnaires Bennett‐Levy
277 and Powell (1980) highlighted that the SMQ and SIME were developed almost concurrently
278 yet with different intentions as the SMQ was intended to bridge a gap between objective
279 memory performance in lab-based settings and everyday memory performance in clinical
280 settings whereas the SIME was intended to examine individual differences in remembering
281 and forgetting in everyday life in relation to theories of memory based on tests conducted in
282 the lab (Herrmann & Neisser, 1978). However, both questionnaires have been used in similar
283 capacities with healthy and patient populations since their initial development (Cutler &
284 Brăgaru, 2017; Gigi et al., 2020; Helmstaedter & Elger, 2000).
285
286 Another questionnaire, the MSEQ, differs from the other outlined self-efficacy measures as it
287 incorporates self-efficacy strength in addition to self-efficacy level measured by confidence
288 ratings and varying task difficulty levels, providing the advantage of separately examining
289 perceived memory ability in specific situations as well as confidence. (Berry et al., 1989). To
290 examine perceived control over and opportunity to change memory ability, the MCI includes
291 several additional such as potential improvement, effort utility, and inevitable decrement,
292 (Lachman et al., 1995). The differences across these questionnaires highlight that even
293 though they examine memory self-efficacy, they are not interchangeable as they have
294 different strengths and limitations. Thus, it is essential to consider the aspects of memory
295 self-efficacy that are being examined in relation to the questionnaire being used.
296
297 Memory self-efficacy questionnaires examine self-perception of memory abilities in specific
298 situations, investigate mechanisms mediating the relationship between self-evaluation and
299 memory performance, and facilitate rapid assessment of self-efficacy in clinical settings
300 (Bennett‐Levy & Powell, 1980; Berry et al., 1989; Riege, 1983; Sehulster, 1981). They
301 provide valuable information regarding an individual’s beliefs about their own memory
302 capabilities and limitations that can aid in creating a memory profile in addition to objective
303 measures. Moreover, self-efficacy questionnaires can be helpful in examining motivation for
304 participating in memory-demanding tasks as an individual’s self-efficacy evaluation may
305 influence their decision to participate (Cavuoto et al., 2021; Hultsch et al., 1985, 1987;
306 Ossher et al., 2013). In addition, these relatively short measures can be administered to older
307 or memory-impaired individuals (Gilewski & Zelinski, 1986; Koss et al., 1993). However,
308 there are limited correlations between self-efficacy questionnaires and objective measures,
309 perhaps indicating a disconnect between what self-efficacy questionnaires and objective
310 memory tasks are measuring (Beaudoin, 2018; Herrmann, 1982). In summary, memory self-
311 efficacy questionnaires provide useful insight as to how people believe they will perform in
312 certain situations, but correlations between memory self-efficacy questionnaire responses and
313 objective memory performance are inconsistent, indicating that self-evaluations may not
314 reflect actual ability.
315
316 Complaints Questionnaires
317 Memory complaints may be the result of memory decline or impairments due to neurological
318 conditions such as stroke and should be seriously considered by clinicians as they may
319 indicate onset of cognitive decline or dementia (McDonough et al., 2019; Schmand et al.,
320 1996; Vale et al., 2012; van der Werf & Vos, 2011; Youn et al., 2009). Memory complaints
321 questionnaires systematically assess complaints of memory failures or decline that can impact
322 daily living. Questionnaires currently in use are shown in Table 3. See Appendix C for
323 sample items.
324
325 One of the most widely used memory complaints questionnaires is the Everyday Memory
326 Questionnaire (EMQ), which was initially designed to assess memory failures in daily life of
327 head-injured patients (Sunderland et al., 1983). Revised versions of the EMQ are now
328 frequently used with patient groups and healthy adults as a memory complaints measure
329 (Calabria et al., 2011; Cornish, 2000; Evans et al., 2020; Royle & Lincoln, 2008; Sander et
330 al., 2018). Another well-established complaints questionnaire, the Memory Assessment
331 Clinics Self-Rating Scale (MAC-S), was initially designed for use in both clinical and
332 research settings to assess memory complaints in adults (Winterling et al., 1986). The MAC-
333 S has subsequently been used as a measure of subjective language functioning, an outcome
334 measure in memory training, and to examine memory complaints with a brief version created
335 for epilepsy patients (D’Angelo et al., 2021; Miller et al., 2019; Tarantini et al., 2021).
336
337 To specifically examine age-related memory decline rather than general memory complaints,
338 Crook et al. (1992) developed the Memory Complaint Questionnaire (MAC-Q). The MAC-Q
339 is currently used to examine severity of subjective memory complaint with patient groups and
340 healthy older adults (Buckley et al., 2013; Vogel et al., 2016). In a different approach, the
341 Subjective Memory Complaints Questionnaire (SMCQ) was developed as a brief measure of
342 memory complaints for older adults in clinical and research settings (Youn et al., 2009). The
343 SMCQ is used in screening for mild cognitive impairment and dementia in community-
344 dwelling older adults but may be affected by executive functioning and mood (Spano et al.,
345 2020; Yim et al., 2017; Youn et al., 2019). Similar to the SMCQ, the Memory Complaints
346 Scale (MCS) was developed to actively and systematically search for memory complaints and
347 to distinguish between individuals with dementia and cognitively healthy older adults (Vale
348 et al., 2012). The MCS has been used with community-dwelling older adults to examine the
349 relationship between memory complaints and objective memory performance, examine the
350 effects of life factors on subjective memory complaints, and as an outcome measure in health
351 education intervention (Casemiro et al., 2018; Dalpubel et al., 2019; Hwang & Kim, 2019).
352 More recently, the Prospective Memory Concerns Questionnaire (PMCQ) was created to
353 identify prospective memory impairments in the general older adult population (Sugden,
354 Thomas, Kiernan, et al., 2021). Further examinations of the validity of this recent measure
355 are warranted.
356
357 Shared characteristics across memory complaints questionnaires include ability to remember,
358 frequency of forgetting, global/general memory ability, and comparison. Ability to remember
359 questions focus on current ability to remember in specific situations such as recalling a
360 person name (e.g., MAC-Q) or more generally, such as ability to recall things that have
361 happened in the past (e.g., MAC-S) (Crook et al., 1992; Winterling et al., 1986). On the other
362 hand, frequency of forgetting questions examine how often memory mistakes occur for
363 specific items such as faces (e.g., SMCQ) or recently learned information (e.g., EMQ)
364 (Sunderland et al., 1983; Youn et al., 2009). In a more general capacity, global items are used
365 to evaluate whether respondents or their companions believe the individual is experiencing
366 general memory problems in daily life (e.g., MCS, SMCQ) (Vale et al., 2012; Youn et al.,
367 2009).
368
369 To examine memory in a comparative scope, the memory comparison characteristic examines
370 whether memory is different compared to one’s own memory at a different time point (e.g.,
371 MAC-Q) or if memory is perceived to be different from others of similar age (e.g., MCS,
372 SMCQ) (Crook et al., 1992; Vale et al., 2012; Youn et al., 2009). As memory complaints
373 questionnaires are usually administered to older adults, it is important to understand the
374 extent to which they believe their memory may have changed over time or how they examine
375 their memory in relation to others. Although complaints questionnaires share similar
376 characteristics with self-efficacy questionnaires, complaints questionnaires are more often
377 used with adults expected to have memory decline or deficits and are more often targeted to
378 older adults.
379
380 Differences across memory complaints questionnaires include design, length, and additional
381 characteristics. For example, the EMQ scale broadly differentiates between memory and
382 attention systems, which is beneficial to separately address domain-specific difficulties
383 (Royle & Lincoln, 2008; Sunderland et al., 1983, 1984). In contrast to the other
384 questionnaires, the MAC-Q examines beliefs of memory change over a specific time period
385 by asking respondents to compare their current memory ability to that of their own in high
386 school or college (Crook et al., 1992). However, affective state may influence responses on
387 the MAC-Q if aging stereotypes negatively influence emotions of respondents completing the
388 measure while comparing their current memory to their memory performance at a younger
389 age (Reid et al., 2012).
390
391 Whereas most complaints questionnaires are completed by the individual experiencing
392 memory difficulties, the MCS contains both a patient and other version to be completed by a
393 companion and includes questions regarding the impact of memory problems on daily
394 activities (Vale et al., 2012). This can be particularly beneficial where it is necessary to
395 determine how memory deficits are impacting daily life and where memory deficits may
396 prevent accurate responding. Several memory complaints measures were initially targeted to
397 clinical populations but were subsequently revised to be more generally applicable (Royle &
398 Lincoln, 2008; Squire et al., 1979; Sunderland et al., 1983; Van Bergen et al., 2010).
399 Moreover, the length of memory complaints questionnaires vary, but some revisions have
400 been made to shorten them where necessary to make them appropriate for use with older
401 adults or patient populations while retaining integral aspects (Calabria et al., 2011; Miller et
402 al., 2020; Royle & Lincoln, 2008). These differences across memory complaints
403 questionnaires demonstrate strengths and limitations that warrant consideration depending on
404 the target group and purpose of assessment when selecting a questionnaire for use.
405
406 Memory complaints questionnaires examine every day remembering and forgetting, assesses
407 age-related memory decline, and detect dementia amongst older adults (Crook et al., 1992;
408 Herrmann & Neisser, 1978; Squire et al., 1979; Sunderland et al., 1983; Vale et al., 2012;
409 Winterling et al., 1986; Youn et al., 2009). Many have been designed for older adults or
410 clinical populations, and thus have been carefully constructed or revised to reduce fatigue
411 while maintaining essential aspects (Calabria et al., 2011; Crook & Larrabee, 1990; Royle &
412 Lincoln, 2008). However, one limitation is that they require the same abilities that are being
413 evaluated, thus, there is an issue of accurate reporting (McDonough et al., 2019; Spano et al.,
414 2020; van der Werf & Vos, 2011). Although it is important to consider the impact of the
415 memory problems on reporting ability of the respondents, few memory complaints
416 questionnaires include measures to address this, such as using an ‘other’ form of the
417 questionnaire that can be completed by family members (Poon et al., 1978; Vale et al., 2012).
418 Nonetheless, memory complaints should be seriously considered because they may indicate
419 initial symptoms of dementia or risk factors (Vale et al., 2012; Vaskivuo et al., 2018).
420 Moreover, recent evidence suggests that healthy older adults with and without memory
421 complaints show functional differences in brain activations for memory tasks that may
422 indicate early signs of dementia and can be considered alongside subjective measures (Hayes
423 et al., 2017; Viviano & Damoiseaux, 2020). In summary, memory complaints questionnaires
424 are valuable for examining complaints in everyday life and memory decline, but the use of
425 additional measures such as other reports from family members and neuroimaging may be
426 necessary to compensate if memory problems interfere with accurate reporting.
427
428 Questionnaires Beyond the Scope of This Review
429 As previously outlined, this review encompasses metamemory, self-efficacy, and complaints
430 questionnaires. Similar questionnaires have been developed to address different aspects of
431 memory or cognition in healthy adults and clinical populations. For example, questionnaires
432 have been designed for use in educational settings, examining self-evaluated cognitive
433 failures, examining the impact of memory changes on daily life, and use in specific studies
434 (Broadbent et al., 1982; Gilewski & Zelinski, 1986; Herrmann, 1982; Kahn et al., 1975;
435 Shaikh et al., 2019; Zarit, Cole, et al., 1981). In addition, memory questionnaires have been
436 developed for specific patient groups and to examine autobiographical memory (Davis et al.,
437 1995; Palombo et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2000; Sutin & Robins, 2007). Although an extensive
438 evaluation is not within the scope of this review, a brief outline of some patient group and
439 autobiographical memory questionnaires is provided here.
440
441 Patient Groups Questionnaires
442 Several questionnaires have been developed to examine subjective memory for specific
443 groups such as dementia and acquired brain injury patients. To screen for Alzheimer’s
444 disease, Koss et al. (1993) developed the Short-Memory Questionnaire (Short MQ), which
445 was derived from the Memory Self-Report Questionnaire (Riege, 1983). The Short MQ has
446 been incorporated in clinical settings to distinguish between individuals with Alzheimer’s
447 disease and healthy older adults (Garcia et al., 1998; N. Maki et al., 2000; Montgomery et al.,
448 2018). In a similar capacity, the Subjective Memory Complaints Scale was created to
449 examine the relationship between subjective memory complaints and cognitive decline or
450 dementia and has been used to examine cognitive decline in community dwelling and
451 memory clinic patient groups (Pires et al., 2012; Schmand et al., 1996; Silva et al., 2014). To
452 examine the frequency of retrospective and prospective memory errors in everyday lives of
453 Alzheimer Disease patients, their carers, and healthy adults, Smith et al. (2000) developed the
454 Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ). The PRMQ is widely used to
455 examine relationships between subjective memory appraisal and objective performance and
456 to prospective and retrospective memory ability across patient populations (Hogan et al.,
457 2021; Kliegel & JÄger, 2006; Vaskivuo et al., 2018).
458
459 To examine memory problems in everyday life that may impact older stroke patients, the
460 Subjective Memory Assessment Questionnaire was developed, but is now considered to have
461 poor reliability (Davis et al., 1995; Salis et al., 2019). A different questionnaire, the Brief
462 Assessment of Prospective Memory, a shortened version of the Comprehensive Assessment
463 of Prospective Memory, was created for use with traumatic brain injury patients but has been
464 expanded to use with stroke patients as well (Hogan et al., 2021; Man et al., 2011, 2015). In a
465 broader scope, the Evaluation of Everyday Memory Questionnaire was created to capture
466 everyday memory instances of acquired brain injury patients and includes a version to be
467 completed by companions (Tropp et al., 2015). These questionnaires generally differ from
468 each other as they target specific groups, but it is noteworthy that some have been extended
469 for use with similar patients such as traumatic brain injury and stroke. The necessity of
470 specific patient group questionnaires indicates that memory problems vary across different
471 populations which should be considered when designing and selecting questionnaires for use.
472 In addition, patient group questionnaires tend to be relatively short as they target groups who
473 may not be able to engage with longer measures (Sugden, Thomas, & Kiernan, 2021). Thus,
474 it is essential to consider which questionnaire is appropriate in relation to the target group.
475
476 Autobiographical Memory Questionnaires
477 Autobiographical memory questionnaires examine memory for past personal events (Clark &
478 Maguire, 2020). A well-established autobiographical memory questionnaire, the Memory
479 Characteristics Questionnaire (MCQ), was designed to examine ratings of memory
480 characteristics such as visual detail, complexity, spatial and temporal information, and
481 feelings (Johnson et al., 1988). The MCQ has been used in exploring characteristics of false
482 memories and memory quality for emotional events (Mather et al., 1997; Waters et al., 2013).
483 Similar to the MCQ, the Autobiographical Memory Questionnaire (AMQ) was derived from
484 autobiographical and memory theories to examine the phenomenological characteristics of
485 autobiographical memories including recollection, vividness, and belief in the memory’s
486 accuracy (Rubin et al., 2003; Talarico et al., 2004). The AMQ is widely used in examining
487 the relationship between emotionality and the properties of autobiographical memories (Y.
488 Maki et al., 2013; Öner & Gülgöz, 2018). Another widely used questionnaire, the Memory
489 Experiences Questionnaire (MEQ), was developed to examine the dimensions of
490 autobiographical memory with a shortened version for time-limited situations (Luchetti &
491 Sutin, 2016; Sutin & Robins, 2007). The MEQ is used in examining the phenomenology of
492 intrusive memories and the relationship between aging and phenomenological aspects of
493 autobiographical memory (Newby & Moulds, 2011; Siedlecki et al., 2015).
494
495 To examine individual differences in trait mnemonics, the Survey of Autobiographical
496 Memory (SAM) was created with episodic, semantic, spatial and future thinking subscales
497 and a brief version developed for epidemiological research (Palombo et al., 2013). The SAM
498 has been used in examining spatial memory and navigation as well as exploring the
499 relationship between autobiographical memory and age-related cognitive decline complaints
500 (Fan et al., 2020; Selarka et al., 2019). Another questionnaire, the Autobiographical Memory
501 Characteristics Questionnaire (AMCQ) was developed to assess characteristics of
502 autobiographical memories and consists of 14 subscales including sensory details,
503 accessibility, and observer perspective (Boyacioglu & Akfirat, 2015). The AMCQ has been
504 used in research exploring the malleability of estimated age in reported memories in relation
505 to memory quality and the relationship between psychopathic traits and recollection of
506 emotional life experiences (Lanciano et al., 2019; Wessel et al., 2019). More recently, the
507 Assessment of the Phenomenology of Autobiographical Memory (APAM) measure was
508 developed to address phenomenology of autobiographical memory with healthy adults and
509 clinical populations (Vannucci et al., 2020). A subsequent web version was created to allow
510 for online self-administration, though further research will be required to demonstrate the
511 validity and reliability of this measure for use in person and online (Vannucci et al., 2021).
512 The outlined autobiographical memory questionnaires share several characteristics and have
513 generally built upon each other to fill gaps and address different aspects of autobiographical
514 memory, which allows for targeted use depending on aims of the assessment.
515
516 Summary
517 Numerous questionnaires are available for use in research and clinical settings that contain
518 items addressing general memory ability, self-efficacy in particular situations, beliefs about
519 control, memory change, comparison of memory ability, frequency of memory failures, or the
520 impact of memory failures on daily life using Likert scales, analogue sliders, or open-ended
521 questions as response options (Berry et al., 1989; Burmester et al., 2017; Crook et al., 1992;
522 Fort et al., 2004; Herrmann, 1982; Hertzog et al., 2014; Mogle et al., 2020, 2021).
523 Questionnaires can be administered during interviews with verbal responses, in pen-and-
524 paper format, and through online platforms. Three general categories of questionnaires were
525 examined here.
526
527 Metamemory questionnaires include multiple subscales to address the multidimensional
528 nature of memory but can be time-consuming and difficult to administer to special
529 populations or in time-limited situations. Memory self-efficacy questionnaires are valuable
530 for examining perceived memory ability in different situations but have limited connection to
531 objective memory performance. Memory complaints questionnaires examine potential
532 memory deficits or decline but require the use of the same abilities being evaluated that are
533 potentially impacted and thus have difficulties in reliability. Additional types of memory
534 questionnaires include those targeted to patient groups and autobiographical questionnaires to
535 examine characteristics of past personal experiences. While memory questionnaires provide
536 crucial information, individual differences that can influence self-evaluation of memory
537 should be considered.
538 Factors Influencing Self-Evaluation of Memory

539 There are individual differences in the way memory is evaluated and therefore reported on
540 questionnaires (Berry et al., 1989; Cavanaugh et al., 1998; Hultsch et al., 1987; Sehulster,
541 1981; Van Bergen et al., 2009). Several factors may interact with memory self-evaluations
542 including knowledge or beliefs about memory, ability to evaluate memory, recent
543 metamemory experiences, and affect (Hertzog et al., 1989, 2014; Rowell et al., 2016; Troyer,
544 2001). These factors are considered below.
545
546 Knowledge/Beliefs About Memory
547 An individual’s conceptualisation of memory as well as beliefs about stereotypes and control
548 over memory can influence self-evaluations (Helmstaedter & Elger, 2000; Hertzog et al.,
549 2014; Troyer & Rich, 2002). For example, memory self-reports may be correlated with
550 different cognitive functions in addition to memory if individuals consider other cognitive
551 functions such as attention, language, and executive function to be part of the definition of
552 memory (Hall et al., 2009; Helmstaedter & Elger, 2000; Payne et al., 2017; Snitz et al.,
553 2015). To prevent this misconception, it may be appropriate to include a definition of
554 memory that corresponds with the questionnaire being used (Mogle et al., 2020).
555
556 In a different capacity, individuals may indicate sufficient knowledge of memory processes
557 but still rate their own memory abilities as poor or less than average based on beliefs relating
558 to generalisations or stereotypes (Hertzog et al., 1989; Troyer, 2001). For example, a
559 prominent stereotype held by adults of all ages is that memory will inevitably decline with
560 age (Cavallini et al., 2013; Dixon & Hultsch, 1983; Hertzog et al., 2014; Kahn et al., 1975;
561 Lineweaver & Hertzog, 1998; Pearman et al., 2014; Ryan, 1992; Troyer, 2001).
562 Consequently, older adults may underestimate their memory ability whereas younger adults
563 may overestimate their memory ability (Cavanaugh et al., 1998; Fort et al., 2004; Fritsch et
564 al., 2014; Irak & Çapan, 2018; Kinsella et al., 2009; Van Bergen et al., 2010). Moreover,
565 stereotypes or generalisations may influence performance on objective measures whereby
566 older adults expect themselves to perform poorly on a memory task based on age, resulting in
567 lack of motivation and subsequently poor performance (Bouazzaoui et al., 2020; Cavuoto et
568 al., 2021; Hultsch et al., 1987; Irak & Çapan, 2018; Ponds & Jolles, 1996a; Poon et al., 1978;
569 Riege, 1983; Troyer & Rich, 2002).
570
571 Similar to beliefs about aging and memory, beliefs about the malleability of memory may
572 influence participation in memory tasks and responses on questionnaire items (Cavanaugh et
573 al., 1998; Dixon & Hultsch, 1983; Lineweaver & Hertzog, 1998). Perceptions that memory
574 decline is inevitable or unchangeable can lead to reduced motivation to participate in memory
575 demanding tasks whereas the belief that memory is malleable may influence motivation to
576 improve memory abilities with memory strategies and more positive reflections of ability
577 (Bouazzaoui et al., 2020; Lachman et al., 1995; Lineweaver et al., 2021; Poon et al., 1978;
578 Thana-Udom et al., 2021). In particular, older adults may believe their memory to be
579 inevitable and irreversible, whereas young adults may view their memory to be more
580 malleable, with more control over their abilities (Cavallini et al., 2013; Dixon & Hultsch,
581 1983; Hultsch et al., 1987; Irak & Çapan, 2018; Lineweaver & Hertzog, 1998). However,
582 memory training that provides education on memory processes and strategies can improve
583 memory control beliefs for older adults (Lineweaver et al., 2021; Thana-Udom et al., 2021).
584
585 Based on the influence of knowledge and beliefs about memory on self-evaluations, it has
586 been argued that memory questionnaires relate to beliefs about memory rather than actual
587 memory ability or performance on specific tasks (Cavanaugh et al., 1998; Herrmann, 1982;
588 Payne et al., 2017; Sehulster, 1981). Memory knowledge and beliefs may also relate to
589 motivation to participate in memory-demanding tasks and use memory strategies
590 (Bouazzaoui et al., 2010; Cavanaugh et al., 1998; Herrmann, 1982; Lineweaver et al., 2021).
591 Thus, knowledge, stereotypes, and beliefs about memory ability and controllability are
592 important factors in evaluating one’s memory and should be considered when administering
593 memory questionnaires.
594
595 Ability to Evaluate Memory
596 Responding to questionnaires requires self-awareness of memory abilities and recent memory
597 experiences, which can be difficult for individuals with memory deficits who can
598 consequently over or under-estimate their memory abilities (Clare et al., 2010; Crook &
599 Larrabee, 1990; Davis et al., 1995; Gilewski, Zelinski, & Schaie, 1990; Man et al., 2011;
600 McDonough et al., 2019; McMillan, 1984; Spano et al., 2020; Sunderland et al., 1984).
601 Young and middle-aged adults are potentially more accurate in assessing their memory
602 abilities compared to older adults because they are regularly provided with feedback through
603 their work or education and are therefore afforded the opportunity to update their self-
604 evaluations (Van Bergen et al., 2009, 2010). On the other hand, it is possible that older adults
605 or memory-impaired individuals are more aware of their memory abilities as they are more
606 attuned to their memory failures in everyday life and may therefore be more realistic in
607 estimating memory functioning compared to healthy or young adults (Cavanaugh et al., 1998;
608 Crumley et al., 2014; Schmidt et al., 2001; Zelinski et al., 1980).
609
610 It has been suggested that young adults may not engage as frequently with memory failures if
611 they are seen as inconsequential, resulting in inaccurate evaluations (Ponds & Jolles, 1996a;
612 Sehulster, 1981; Sunderland et al., 1983; Zelinski et al., 1980). In support of this, some
613 studies have shown that older adults have better correlation between subjective and objective
614 memory measures in comparison to younger adults (Pearman & Trujillo, 2013; Riege, 1983;
615 Zelinski et al., 1980). However, further exploration is warranted to examine the factors that
616 underly the ability to accurately evaluate memory as comparing responses on subjective
617 measures to performance on objective measures often has inconsistent results (Bennett‐Levy
618 & Powell, 1980; Burmester et al., 2017; Crumley et al., 2014).
619
620 Potential solutions to the difficulty of evaluating one’s own memory include questionnaires
621 for companions or using checklists and diaries that capture daily remembering instances
622 (Gilewski, Zelinski, & Anthony-Bergstone, 1990; Helmstaedter & Elger, 2000; Man et al.,
623 2011; Sugden, Thomas, & Kiernan, 2021; Sunderland et al., 1983; Vale et al., 2012; Yim et
624 al., 2017). However, memory may be assessed differently depending on whether it is being
625 assessed for oneself or for another person and discrepancies between self and other reports
626 and objective memory measures indicate a lack of reliability in determining which approach
627 best represents actual memory abilities (Clare et al., 2010; Hall et al., 2009; Helmstaedter &
628 Elger, 2000; Smith et al., 2000; Sugden, Thomas, & Kiernan, 2021). In addition, the
629 seriousness of a memory failure may vary across individuals such that the same memory
630 failure may seem inconsequential to one but serious to another (Hogan et al., 2021; Mogle et
631 al., 2019; Zelinski et al., 1980). For example, experiences such as forgetting keys or
632 misplacing one’s glasses may be seen as failing memory for older adults but for younger
633 adults may simply be ignored as inconsequential forgetting (Kahn et al., 1975; Kahn &
634 Miller, 1978; Zarit, Cole, et al., 1981).
635
636 To get accurate reporting from companions, they would need to be in contact with the patient
637 on a daily basis to observe memory successes and failures (Sugden, Thomas, & Kiernan,
638 2021). Thus, it is essential to consider the extent to which individuals can accurately judge
639 the memory ability of others through observation. In summary, ability to accurately assess
640 memory may vary depending on several factors including memory problems, confidence in
641 memory, the relationship to others completing similar questionnaires, and perceived
642 seriousness of memory failures.
643
644 Recent Metamemory Experiences
645 Memory evaluations can be based on past experiences, information provided by others about
646 memory successes and failures, or comparisons of personal performance across time
647 (Cavanaugh et al., 1998; Helmstaedter & Elger, 2000; Herrmann, 1982; Mogle et al., 2017;
648 Sehulster, 1981). Recent experiences in daily life or in an experimental setting may impact
649 memory evaluations (Cavanaugh et al., 1998; Cavuoto et al., 2021; Pearman et al., 2014;
650 Sehulster, 1981; Van Bergen et al., 2010; Zelinski et al., 1980). For example, if responding to
651 a question about remembering names, an individual may recall a recent event in daily life
652 involving recalling names or past performance on a memory test (Cavanaugh et al., 1998;
653 Pearman & Trujillo, 2013; Sehulster, 1981).
654
655 In a broader capacity, forgetting incidents that cause embarrassment or frustration may lead
656 to negative perceptions of general memory ability (Hertzog et al., 1989; Poon et al., 1978).
657 Moreover, older adults who have been recently exposed to friends or family members with
658 dementia could misinterpret normal age-related memory decline as being related to dementia
659 (Kinzer & Suhr, 2016; Van Bergen et al., 2009). On the other hand, recent exposure to
660 individuals with dementia or worsening memory could result in an updated belief as to what
661 constitutes good memory and may lead to older adults evaluating their memory abilities in a
662 more positive light (Pearman et al., 2014). Moreover, older adults may evaluate recent
663 memory lapses as part of normal aging (Mogle et al., 2019; Pearman et al., 2014). Thus, it is
664 essential to consider the extent to which the questions asked on memory questionnaires
665 require reflection of recent memory experiences.

666
667 Recollection of past experiences can be influenced by the question format on questionnaires.
668 Whereas some items require consideration of recent events, others require consideration of
669 events in the prior years or decades, whereas some do not include an anchor (Crook et al.,
670 1992; Hultsch et al., 1987; Kahn & Miller, 1978; Mogle et al., 2020; Rowell et al., 2016).
671 This can lead to different levels of specificity when recalling the prior events and individuals
672 might rely on generalisations to recall information or events from more remote periods
673 (Hultsch et al., 1987; Mogle et al., 2020). However, older adults indicate that remote memory
674 is better than recent memory and they may be more accurate when recalling earlier life events
675 whereas younger adults may be more accurate when retrieving recent events (Kahn et al.,
676 1975; Kahn & Miller, 1978). As such, Kahn & Miller (1978) suggest that a more apt
677 comparison of recent and remote memory experiences would be to ask about the same event
678 recently and several years prior.
679
680 It has also been demonstrated that the order of questions, e.g., having a global memory
681 question before specific memory questions may lead to more concerns about memory as
682 negative experiences are more salient and will therefore result in a negative view of general
683 memory ability (Cyr & Anderson, 2019). In a different capacity, the frequency with which
684 individuals engage with everyday remembering tasks may vary if they use memory aids or
685 rely on carers for assistance (Hogan et al., 2021; Ossher et al., 2013; Sander et al., 2018). As
686 such, when reflecting on recent memory experiences, individuals may either account for the
687 use of everyday aids if they are considered to be an extension of their own memory or they
688 may evaluate their memory based on their capability, with either case resulting in different
689 outcomes (Sander et al., 2018). Therefore, when considering responses to memory
690 questionnaires, particularly those that require recall of past information or events, it is
691 important to consider how recent as well as remote metamemory experiences influence self-
692 evaluations.
693
694 Affect
695 Affective states that are either temporary or chronic including stress, concern, anxiety, and
696 depression can influence recall of affect-congruent behaviours when evaluating memory
697 (Cavanaugh et al., 1998; Lineweaver & Brolsma, 2014; Pearman et al., 2014; Rowell et al.,
698 2016; West et al., 1984; Yoon et al., 2019). Affect may also impact motivation to participate
699 in memory-demanding tasks and to seek help for memory problems (Beaudoin, 2018;
700 Bouazzaoui et al., 2020; Gigi et al., 2020; Pires et al., 2012). On the other hand, it is possible
701 that memory problems, recent memory failures, or concerns about memory decline can
702 influence anxiety and depression (Bhang et al., 2020; Cavuoto et al., 2021; Cutler & Brăgaru,
703 2017; Mogle et al., 2019; Tropp et al., 2015).
704
705 Past research has consistently demonstrated a link between affect and subjective memory
706 evaluations, even when the link between subjective memory evaluations and objective
707 memory performance is weak (Buckley et al., 2013; Kahn et al., 1975; Larrabee & Levin,
708 1986; Lineweaver & Brolsma, 2014; Pearman et al., 2014; Tropp et al., 2015; Vale et al.,
709 2012; West et al., 1984; Zarit, Gallagher, et al., 1981; Zelinski & Gilewski, 2004).
710 Specifically, scores on subjective memory questionnaires (e.g., MAC-Q, MFQ) are
711 significantly correlated with scores on anxiety and depression measures (e.g., the State-Trait
712 Anxiety Inventory and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Rating Scale) across
713 healthy adults of all ages and patient groups (Evans et al., 2020; Fort et al., 2004; Kahn et al.,
714 1975; Pearman et al., 2014; Reid et al., 2012; Rowell et al., 2016; West et al., 1984).
715 However, mixed results have been found regarding the link between affect and memory
716 performance with the relationship being weak in some cases and strong in others (Crook et
717 al., 1992; Gilewski, Zelinski, & Anthony-Bergstone, 1990; Larrabee & Levin, 1986; West et
718 al., 1984; Zarit, Cole, et al., 1981).
719
720 Emotional problems appear to be a main concern when individuals are asked about memory
721 problems and anxiety and depression have been implicated as risk factors for mild cognitive
722 impairment (Gigi et al., 2020; Ma, 2020; Ponds & Jolles, 1996a). Moreover, negative feelings
723 towards oneself before performing a memory task or responding to questionnaires may result
724 in poorer outcomes on both (Bouazzaoui et al., 2020; Cavuoto et al., 2021; Poon et al., 1978).
725 In contrast, it has been suggested that anxiety or worry about memory may result in an
726 increase in motivation, resource allocation, and use of memory strategies in memory tasks to
727 compensate for negative feelings (Beaudoin, 2018; van der Werf & Vos, 2011).
728
729 Memory training or interventions and general noncognitive training have been linked to
730 reduced memory complaints and improved confidence in memory abilities even when this is
731 not reflected in objective memory performance (Sugden, Thomas, & Kiernan, 2021; Thana-
732 Udom et al., 2021; Zarit, Cole, et al., 1981; Zarit, Gallagher, et al., 1981). Evidently, affect
733 plays an important role in subjective memory evaluation and as such, should be measured
734 where memory performance is investigated (Hall et al., 2009; Rowell et al., 2016; Vaskivuo
735 et al., 2018; West et al., 1984; Yoon et al., 2019). In summary, it is possible that individuals
736 experiencing anxiety or depression may negatively evaluate their memory even without
737 objective memory deficits and judge memory to be improved following treatment for affect
738 or general cognitive training due to improved mood rather than performance (Gilewski,
739 Zelinski, & Anthony-Bergstone, 1990; Rowell et al., 2016; West et al., 1984).
740
741 Summary
742 Knowledge and beliefs about memory, ability to evaluate memory, recent metamemory
743 experiences, and affect may influence self-evaluations and reports of memory abilities and
744 memory performance. It has also been demonstrated that personality traits such as
745 neuroticism and conscientousness are linked to memory evaluations and should also be
746 evaluated alongside subjective memory measures (Mogle et al., 2017; Pearman et al., 2014;
747 Rowell et al., 2016; Zelinski & Gilewski, 2004). Increased knowledge of memory processes
748 or mechanisms may reduce the influence of stereotypes or myths about memory decline with
749 aging. Similarly, increasing self-awareness of memory problems may reduce overconfident
750 responding. Recent metamemory experiences, in particular memory failures, may result in
751 negative self-evaluations but can be addressed by careful question wording and order.
752 Finally, affective states may influence self-evaluations and potentially memory performance
753 and shoud be measured alongside subjective memory measurements and addressed with
754 appropriate treatment. The influence of these individual differences on memory evaluations
755 should be considered when using memory questionnaires and evaluating memory
756 performance.
757
758 Relationship Between Subjective and Objective Memory Measures

759 There is little consistency across previous research on the relationship between subjective
760 memory evaluation and objective memory performance (Burmester et al., 2017; Calabria et
761 al., 2011; Crumley et al., 2014; Gilewski, Zelinski, & Anthony-Bergstone, 1990; Hall et al.,
762 2009; Pearman et al., 2014; Schmidt et al., 2001). Some studies have found no correlation
763 (Burmester et al., 2017; Kahn et al., 1975; Pearman et al., 2014; Schmidt et al., 2001; West et
764 al., 1984), whereas others have found only weak or moderate correlations between results on
765 memory questionnaires and objective memory measures (Beaudoin & Desrichard, 2017;
766 Bennett‐Levy & Powell, 1980; Hulicka, 1982; Sehulster, 1981; Sunderland et al., 1983; Vale
767 et al., 2012; Van Bergen et al., 2009, 2010). Correlations appear to be best when memory is
768 assessed in corresponding domains, for example with face-name recall (Bennett‐Levy &
769 Powell, 1980; Ossher et al., 2013).
770
771 There are several possible reasons for the disconnect between subjective and objective
772 memory evaluation. First, subjective and objective measures may be examining different
773 aspects of memory. While objective measures such as recall or recognition tasks are mainly
774 episodic and require conscious recollection of information that was presented, subjective
775 measures often require considerations of semantic and prospective memory and can invite
776 retrieval of information about memory ability and stereotypes (Bennett‐Levy & Powell, 1980;
777 Hall et al., 2009; Schmidt et al., 2001). Moreover, objective memory tests often involve
778 learning and testing of new information, whereas subjective questionnaires often invite
779 retrieval of past experiences in addition to evaluation of general memory ability (Bennett‐
780 Levy & Powell, 1980; Helmstaedter & Elger, 2000; Reid et al., 2012; Van Bergen et al.,
781 2009). Although objective measures provide insight into learning and memory within a lab-
782 based context, this may not be representative of real-world experiences and memory
783 processes (Hultsch et al., 1985; McMillan, 1984; Ossher et al., 2013; Sander et al., 2018;
784 Vaskivuo et al., 2018). Perhaps questions about task-specific memory beliefs rather than
785 general memory performance or abilities would be more appropriate to match the type of
786 memory being examined in objective tests (Lachman et al., 1995; Troyer & Rich, 2002).
787 However, this would not provide reflections on memory in daily life.
788
789 Another potential reason for the lack of correlation is that subjective and objective memory
790 tasks are measured differently. Objective measures are often completed in lab-based settings
791 with stimuli designed or selected to target a specific aspect of memory whereas self-report
792 measures may be completed in lab, clinical, or community settings with items that focus on
793 memory abilities and experiences in daily life (Bennett‐Levy & Powell, 1980; Broadbent et
794 al., 1982; Ponds & Jolles, 1996a; Schmidt et al., 2001, 2001; Sugden, Thomas, & Kiernan,
795 2021; Troyer & Rich, 2002). Moreover, objective memory tasks often involve explicit
796 instructions and guidance available to complete the task, whereas subjective measures such as
797 questionnaires rely on respondents’ interpretation of concept meanings and question
798 understanding (Mogle et al., 2021; Sunderland et al., 1983; Vogel et al., 2016). However,
799 questions on subjective measures about general memory beliefs or specific everyday
800 situations may not be easily replicated in the lab setting (Lachman et al., 1995). For example,
801 whereas individuals, particularly older adults, use compensatory strategies such as external
802 memory aids in everyday situations, memory testing in lab situations often preclude this
803 option (Bouazzaoui et al., 2010; Crumley et al., 2014; Sugden, Thomas, & Kiernan, 2021;
804 Troyer & Rich, 2002). Thus, objective memory measures may not accurately reflect everyday
805 memory tasks that are examined on memory questionnaires (Davis et al., 1995; Hall et al.,
806 2009; Man et al., 2011; McMillan, 1984; Ossher et al., 2013; Sugden, Thomas, & Kiernan,
807 2021; Sunderland et al., 1983).
808
809 Finally, it is possible that inaccurate reporting on memory questionnaires may influence the
810 discrepancy between subjective and objective measures. Individuals relying on stereotypes
811 might negatively evaluate their memory ability even if objective performance is within a
812 normal range (Kahn et al., 1975; Pearman et al., 2014; Sugden, Thomas, & Kiernan, 2021;
813 Troyer & Rich, 2002; Van Bergen et al., 2010; Zelinski et al., 1980). Similarly, some
814 individuals may underestimate or overestimate memory abilities if they are unable to
815 accurately assess their abilities due to memory impairment (Hall et al., 2009; Herrmann,
816 1982; Illman et al., 2015; Snitz et al., 2015). Moreover, confounding memory with other
817 cognitive domains may result in overreporting of memory problems (Burmester et al., 2017;
818 Hall et al., 2009; Hülür et al., 2018; Snitz et al., 2015). Thus, it is essential to consider the
819 accuracy of responses on subjective measures in relation to performance on objective tasks.
820 The discrepancy between subjective and objective measures has important implications for
821 the diagnosis and treatment of memory problems and the use of memory questionnaires
822 (Bennett‐Levy & Powell, 1980; Hall et al., 2009; Illman et al., 2015). Based on the lack of
823 correlation between subjective and objective measures, it has been argued that subjective
824 reports alone should not be relied upon in clinical settings (Crumley et al., 2014; Garcia et al.,
825 1998; Herrmann, 1982; Sander et al., 2018; Schmidt et al., 2001; Sunderland et al., 1986).
826 However, it can also be argued that objective reports alone are not sufficient to reveal
827 memory problems that occur in daily life and that self-report measures reveal important
828 individual differences in memory abilities (Sander et al., 2018). Thus, it is important to
829 consider how to best combine self-report and objective measures when examining memory
830 (Gilewski, Zelinski, & Anthony-Bergstone, 1990; Sugden, Thomas, & Kiernan, 2021; Troyer
831 & Rich, 2002; Youn et al., 2019).
832
833 Conclusions and Future Considerations

834 Memory is often assessed using objective measures such as recognition or recall tests,
835 subjective measures such as memory questionnaires, or a combination of both. This review
836 focused on three types of memory questionnaires, metamemory, self-efficacy, and
837 complaints. Metamemory questionnaires address multiple dimensions of memory, self-
838 efficacy questionnaires examine evaluations of memory ability in specific situations, and
839 complaints questionnaires assess memory difficulties in everyday life. Individual differences
840 such as knowledge/beliefs about memory, ability to accurately evaluate memory, recent
841 metamemory experiences, and affect can influence memory self-evaluations and therefore
842 reporting on memory questionnaires. Although memory questionnaires are useful in
843 examining self-reported memory ability and complaints, there is often discrepancies between
844 reports and objective memory performance that can lead to difficulty diagnosing and treating
845 memory problems. Thus, several considerations arise for the design and use of memory
846 questionnaires.
847
848 Some questionnaires have been criticised for being developed within research settings, with
849 limited relevance to clinical use, including items such as public speaking, driving, and
850 working that may be irrelevant to particular groups (Sander et al., 2018; Troyer & Rich,
851 2002). Moreover, many questionnaires have been developed before the commonplace use of
852 assistive technologies across healthy adults and patient populations (e.g., mobile phones to
853 store phone numbers) and therefore warrant caution when using questions that assume no use
854 of external memory aids or technology (Miller et al., 2020; Mogle et al., 2020; Sander et al.,
855 2018). Similarly, questionnaires that have been created based on suggestions from patients
856 and researchers may include items that are interpreted differently by different groups of
857 respondents (Bennett‐Levy & Powell, 1980; Cavanaugh et al., 1998; Cronholm & Ottosson,
858 1963; Helmstaedter & Elger, 2000; Sehulster, 1981; Squire et al., 1979).
859
860 It may be necessary to clearly define constructs or to ask respondents for their definitions in
861 the questionnaires to accurately interpret responses (Cavanaugh et al., 1998; Hall et al., 2009;
862 Mogle et al., 2020). In addition, it is important to examine how subjective memory measures
863 relate to actual memory ability (Vaskivuo et al., 2018). The low to moderate correlations
864 between subjective and objective measures remains an issue within the field that warrants
865 further exploration because this may influence the view that questionnaires are unreliable
866 (Broadbent et al., 1982; Crumley et al., 2014; Hall et al., 2009; Hendriks et al., 2002; Hülür et
867 al., 2018; Payne et al., 2017; Poon et al., 1978; Sugden, Thomas, & Kiernan, 2021). Thus, it
868 is essential to consider the connection between memory questionnaires and actual memory
869 ability and whether subjective measures should be compared with objective measures or used
870 in combination as separate measures for evaluating different aspects of memory.
871
872 When selecting a questionnaire, it is important to consider the target group and memory
873 abilities being examined. Whereas metamemory questionnaires include multiple subscales
874 that can be used to complete a thorough evaluation, memory self-efficacy questionnaires
875 focus on ability in particular situations, and memory complaints questionnaires examine
876 every day remembering and forgetting instances. Thus, these questionnaires are not
877 interchangeable and will invite different considerations from respondents. For example, while
878 respondents may rely on schemas and stereotypes when responding to metamemory
879 questionnaires, specific past experiences may come to mind when responding to self-efficacy
880 or complaints questionnaires (Mogle et al., 2020; Ossher et al., 2013).
881
882 While memory complaints may indicate developing memory problems that are not detected
883 through objective measures alone, questionnaires designed for use with a specific population
884 may not be generalisable to others (Davis et al., 1995; Evans et al., 2020; Gilewski &
885 Zelinski, 1986; Salis et al., 2019). Moreover, lengthy questionnaires can induce fatigue,
886 particularly in older adults or individuals with memory impairments (Crook et al., 1992;
887 Davis et al., 1995; Zelinski & Gilewski, 2004). To address these concerns, shortened versions
888 or companion reports can be used (Man et al., 2011; McDonough et al., 2019; Yim et al.,
889 2017). In addition, using questionnaires with multiple subscales may not be beneficial where
890 a particular domain or aspect of memory is the focal point of the investigation (Crook et al.,
891 1992; Mogle et al., 2020). Instead, matching the questionnaire to the target respondents’
892 abilities and limitations would likely provide more accurate results.
893
894 When evaluating questionnaire responses, it is worth considering how individual differences
895 influence memory evaluations and thus rehabilitation or training. Whereas some individuals
896 respond to questionnaires using implicit theories about memory, others respond based on past
897 experiences (Lineweaver & Hertzog, 1998; Pearman et al., 2014). Rather than training to
898 improve objective memory performance, perhaps training to reduce engagement with
899 stereotypes may improve accuracy of self-evaluations (Beaudoin, 2018; Ponds & Jolles,
900 1996a; Zarit, Cole, et al., 1981; Zarit, Gallagher, et al., 1981). Moreover, training to focus on
901 memory successes as well as memory failures, and increased knowledge that adults of all
902 ages encounter memory lapses may serve to reduce misconceptions regarding aging and
903 memory (Pearman & Trujillo, 2013; Zarit, Cole, et al., 1981).
904
905 As some individuals may not be able to accurately assess their own memory abilities,
906 appropriate alternatives should be put in place such as diaries or checklists to record everyday
907 memory failures (Herrmann, 1982; Sunderland et al., 1984). Similarly, it is possible to
908 include evaluations performed by companions of individuals with memory impairments
909 (Dalpubel et al., 2019; Garcia et al., 1998; Hulicka, 1982; Sunderland et al., 1983; Yim et al.,
910 2017). Finally, it is important to include measures of affect and personality traits when
911 examining subjective memory evaluations as they are consistently demonstrated to be linked
912 (Evans et al., 2020; Hall et al., 2009; Rowell et al., 2016; Tropp et al., 2015; Vaskivuo et al.,
913 2018; West et al., 1984; Yoon et al., 2019).
914
915 In summary, subjective memory measures such as questionnaires are useful tools to examine
916 daily remembering and forgetting, self-efficacy, general beliefs about memory, and memory
917 complaints (Garcia et al., 1998; Hulicka, 1982; Troyer & Rich, 2002; Vale et al., 2012; van
918 der Werf & Vos, 2011). In comparison to observations or interviews, questionnaires provide
919 a standardised option to examine memory abilities, experiences, and potential for
920 improvement (Crumley et al., 2014; McDonough et al., 2019; Sugden, Thomas, & Kiernan,
921 2021). At present, the general consensus is that subjective memory questionnaires alone
922 should not be used for screening for memory problems, but subjective and objective measures
923 should be combined to provide the most accurate assessment of memory (Poon et al., 1978;
924 Sugden, Thomas, & Kiernan, 2021; Troyer & Rich, 2002; Youn et al., 2019). Memory
925 questionnaires, if selected appropriately in relation to the target audience and assessment
926 purpose, are essential tools in research and clinical settings.
927
928 References
929 Beaudoin, M. (2018). Memory performance in older adults: Experimental evidence for the
930 indirect effect of memory self-efficacy on processing efficiency through worry.
931 Motivation and Emotion, 42(6), 885–895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9703-5
932 Beaudoin, M., & Desrichard, O. (2011). Are memory self-efficacy and memory performance
933 related? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 211–241.
934 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022106
935 Beaudoin, M., & Desrichard, O. (2017). Memory self-efficacy and memory performance in
936 older adults. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 76(1), 23–33.
937 https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000188
938 Bennett‐Levy, J., & Powell, G. E. (1980). The subjective memory questionnaire (SMQ). An
939 investigation into the self-reporting of ‘real-life’ memory skills. British Journal of
940 Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(2), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
941 8260.1980.tb00946.x
942 Berry, J. M., West, R. L., & Dennehey, D. M. (1989). Reliability and validity of the Memory
943 Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 701–713.
944 https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.5.701
945 Bhang, I., Mogle, J. A., Hill, N., Whitaker, E. B., & Bhargava, S. (2020). Examining the
946 temporal associations between self-reported memory problems and depressive
947 symptoms in older adults. Aging & Mental Health, 24(11), 1864–1871.
948 https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2019.1647135
949 Bouazzaoui, B., Fay, S., Guerrero-Sastoque, L., Semaine, M., Isingrini, M., & Taconnat, L.
950 (2020). Memory age-based stereotype threat: Role of locus of control and anxiety.
951 Experimental Aging Research, 46(1), 39–51.
952 https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2019.1693009
953 Bouazzaoui, B., Isingrini, M., Fay, S., Angel, L., Vanneste, S., Clarys, D., & Taconnat, L.
954 (2010). Aging and self-reported internal and external memory strategy uses: The role
955 of executive functioning. Acta Psychologica, 135(1), 59–66.
956 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.05.007
957 Boyacioglu, I., & Akfirat, S. (2015). Development and psychometric properties of a new
958 measure for memory phenomenology: The Autobiographical Memory Characteristics
959 Questionnaire. Memory, 23(7), 1070–1092.
960 https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.953960
961 Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. F., FitzGerald, P., & Parkes, K. R. (1982). The Cognitive
962 Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical
963 Psychology, 21(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb01421.x
964 Bruce, P. R., Coyne, A. C., & Botwinick, J. (1982). Adult age differences in metamemory.
965 Journal of Gerontology, 37(3), 354–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/37.3.354
966 Buckley, R., Saling, M. M., Ames, D., Rowe, C. C., Lautenschlager, N. T., Macaulay, S. L.,
967 Martins, R. N., Masters, C. L., O’Meara, T., Savage, G., Szoeke, C., Villemagne, V.
968 L., Ellis, K. A., & Australian Imaging Biomarkers and Lifestyle Study of Aging
969 (AIBL) Research Group. (2013). Factors affecting subjective memory complaints in
970 the AIBL aging study: Biomarkers, memory, affect, and age. International
971 Psychogeriatrics, 25(8), 1307–1315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610213000665
972 Burmester, B., Leathem, J., & Merrick, P. (2015). Assessing subjective memory complaints:
973 A comparison of spontaneous reports and structured questionnaire methods.
974 International Psychogeriatrics, 27(1), 61–77.
975 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610214001161
976 Burmester, B., Leathem, J., & Merrick, P. (2017). Influence of assessment methods on
977 subjective and objective memory impairment. GeroPsych, 30(2), 79–84.
978 https://doi.org/10.1024/1662-9647/a000167
979 Calabria, M., Manenti, R., Rosini, S., Zanetti, O., Miniussi, C., & Cotelli, M. (2011).
980 Objective and subjective memory impairment in elderly adults: A revised version of
981 the Everyday Memory Questionnaire. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research,
982 23(1), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03324954
983 Campelo, G., Zortea, M., Saraiva, R., Machado, W., Sbicigo, J. B., Segabinazi, J. D., Gastal,
984 C., Castilho, G. M. de, & Salles, J. F. (2016). A short version of the questionnaire of
985 metamemory in Adulthood (MIA) in Portuguese. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 29.
986 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-016-0043-7
987 Casemiro, F. G., Quirino, D. M., Diniz, M. A. A., Rodrigues, R. A. P., Pavarini, S. C. I., &
988 Gratão, A. C. M. (2018). Effects of health education in the elderly with mild cognitive
989 impairment. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, 71, 801–810.
990 https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2017-0032
991 Cavallini, E., Bottiroli, S., Fastame, M. C., & Hertzog, C. (2013). Age and subcultural
992 differences on personal and general beliefs about memory. Journal of Aging Studies,
993 27(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2012.11.002
994 Cavanaugh, J. C., Feldman, J. M., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Memory beliefs as social cognition:
995 A reconceptualization of what memory questionnaires assess. Review of General
996 Psychology, 2(1), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.1.48
997 Cavuoto, M. G., Franzese, S., & Kinsella, G. J. (2021). Pre-test experience and memory
998 performance in Older Adults: The impact of test anxiety and self-efficacy. Archives of
999 Clinical Neuropsychology, 36(5), 791–800. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acaa093
1000 Cherry, K. E., Lyon, B. A., Boudreaux, E. O., Blanchard, A. B., Hicks, J. L., Elliott, E. M.,
1001 Myers, L., Kim, S., & Jazwinski, S. M. (2019). Memory self-efficacy and beliefs
1002 about memory and aging in oldest-old adults in the Louisiana healthy aging study
1003 (LHAS). Experimental Aging Research, 45(1), 28–40.
1004 https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2018.1560107
1005 Clare, L., Whitaker, C. J., & Nelis, S. M. (2010). Appraisal of memory functioning and
1006 memory performance in healthy ageing and early-stage Alzheimer’s disease. Aging,
1007 Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 17(4), 462–491.
1008 https://doi.org/10.1080/13825580903581558
1009 Clark, I. A., & Maguire, E. A. (2020). Do questionnaires reflect their purported cognitive
1010 functions? Cognition, 195, 104114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104114
1011 Cornish, I. M. (2000). Factor structure of the Everyday Memory Questionnaire. British
1012 Journal of Psychology, 91(3), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161916
1013 Cronholm, B., & Ottosson, J.-O. (1963). The experience of memory function after
1014 electroconvulsive therapy. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 109(459), 251–256.
1015 https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.109.459.251
1016 Crook, T. H., Feher, E. P., & Larrabee, G. J. (1992). Assessment of memory complaint in
1017 age-associated memory impairment: The MAC-Q. International Psychogeriatrics,
1018 4(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610292000991
1019 Crook, T. H., & Larrabee, G. J. (1990). A self-rating scale for evaluating memory in
1020 everyday life. Psychology and Aging, 5(1), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1037//0882-
1021 7974.5.1.48
1022 Crumley, J. J., Stetler, C. A., & Horhota, M. (2014). Examining the relationship between
1023 subjective and objective memory performance in older adults: A meta-analysis.
1024 Psychology and Aging, 29(2), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035908
1025 Cutler, S. J., & Brăgaru, C. (2017). Do worries about cognitive functioning and concerns
1026 about developing Alzheimer’s disease affect psychological well-being? Journal of
1027 Aging and Health, 29(8), 1271–1287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264316674535
1028 Cyr, A.-A., & Anderson, N. D. (2019). Effects of question framing on self-reported memory
1029 concerns across the lifespan. Experimental Aging Research, 45(1), 1–9.
1030 https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2018.1560104
1031 Dalpubel, D., Rossi, P. G., Almeida, M. L. de, Ribeiro, E. B., Araújo, R., Andrade, L. P. de,
1032 & Vale, F. de A. C. do. (2019). Subjective memory complaint and its relationship
1033 with cognitive changes and physical vulnerability of community-dwelling older
1034 adults. Dementia & Neuropsychologia, 13(3), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-
1035 57642018dn13-030012
1036 D’Angelo, E. C., Ober, B. A., & Shenaut, G. K. (2021). Combined memory training: An
1037 approach for episodic memory deficits in traumatic brain injury. American Journal of
1038 Speech-Language Pathology, 30, 920–932. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-
1039 00075
1040 Davis, A. M., Cockburn, J. M., Wade, D. T., & Smith, P. T. (1995). A subjective memory
1041 assessment questionnaire for use with elderly people after stroke. Clinical
1042 Rehabilitation, 9(3), 238–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/026921559500900310
1043 Dixon, R. A., & Hultsch, D. F. (1983). Structure and development of metamemory in
1044 adulthood. Journal of Gerontology, 38(6), 682–688.
1045 https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/38.6.682
1046 Evans, F. A., Wong, D., Lawson, D. W., Withiel, T. D., & Stolwyk, R. J. (2020). What are
1047 the most common memory complaints following stroke? A frequency and exploratory
1048 factor analysis of items from the Everyday Memory Questionnaire-Revised. The
1049 Clinical Neuropsychologist, 34(3), 498–511.
1050 https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2019.1652349
1051 Fan, C. L., Romero, K., & Levine, B. (2020). Older adults with lower autobiographical
1052 memory abilities report less age-related decline in everyday cognitive function. BMC
1053 Geriatrics, 20(1), 308. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01720-7
1054 Fort, I., Adoul, L., Holl, D., Kaddour, J., & Gana, K. (2004). Psychometric properties of the
1055 french version of the Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire for adults and the elderly.
1056 Canadian Journal on Aging, 23(4), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1353/cja.2005.0020
1057 Fritsch, T., McClendon, M. J., Wallendal, M. S., Hyde, T. F., & Larsen, J. D. (2014).
1058 Prevalence and cognitive bases of subjective memory complaints in older adults:
1059 Evidence from a community sample. Journal of Neurodegenerative Diseases, 2014,
1060 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/176843
1061 Garcia, M. P., Garcia, J. F. G., Guerrero, N. V., Triguero, J. A. L., & Puente, A. E. (1998).
1062 Neuropsychological evaluation of everyday memory. Neuropsychology Review, 8(4),
1063 203–227. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021622319851
1064 Gervasio, A. H., & Blusewicz, M. J. (1988). Prediction and evaluation of everyday memory
1065 in neurological patients. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26(4), 339–342.
1066 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337675
1067 Gigi, A., Papirovitz, M., Vakil, E., & Treves, T. (2020). Medical help-seekers with anxiety
1068 from deterioration in memory are characterized with risk factors for cognitive decline.
1069 Clinical Gerontologist, 43(2), 204–208.
1070 https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2018.1527423
1071 Gilewski, M., & Zelinski, E. M. (1986). Questionnaire assessment of memory complaints. In
1072 Handbook for clinical memory assessment of older adults (pp. 93–107). American
1073 Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10057-008
1074 Gilewski, M., Zelinski, E. M., & Anthony-Bergstone, C. R. (1990). Memory Functioning
1075 Questionnaire: Concurrent validity with memory performance and self-reported
1076 memory failures. Psychology and Aging, 5(3), 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-
1077 7974.5.3.388
1078 Gilewski, M., Zelinski, E. M., & Schaie, K. W. (1990). The Memory Functioning
1079 Questionnaire for assessment of memory complaints in adulthood and old age.
1080 Psychology and Aging, 5(4), 482–490.
1081 Hall, K. E., Isaac, C. L., & Harris, P. (2009). Memory complaints in epilepsy: An accurate
1082 reflection of memory impairment or an indicator of poor adjustment? A review of the
1083 literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(4), 354–367.
1084 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.03.001
1085 Hayes, J. M., Tang, L., Viviano, R. P., van Rooden, S., Ofen, N., & Damoiseaux, J. S. (2017).
1086 Subjective memory complaints are associated with brain activation supporting
1087 successful memory encoding. Neurobiology of Aging, 60, 71–80.
1088 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.08.015
1089 Helmstaedter, C., & Elger, C. E. (2000). Behavioral markers for self- and other-attribution of
1090 memory: A study in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy and healthy volunteers.
1091 Epilepsy Research, 41(3), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-1211(00)00148-0
1092 Hendriks, M. P. H., Aldenkamp, A. P., van der Vlugt, H., Alpherts, W. C. J., & Vermeulen, J.
1093 (2002). Memory complaints in medically refractory epilepsy: Relationship to
1094 epilepsy-related factors. Epilepsy & Behavior: E&B, 3(2), 165–172.
1095 Herrmann, D. J. (1982). Know thy memory: The use of questionnaires to assess and study
1096 memory. Psychological Bulletin, 92(2), 434–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
1097 2909.92.2.434
1098 Herrmann, D. J., & Neisser, U. (1978). An Inventory of Everyday Memory Experiences. In
1099 Practical Aspects of Memory (pp. 35–51). Academic Press.
1100 Hertzog, C., Hultsch, D. F., & Dixon, R. A. (1989). Evidence for the convergent validity of
1101 two self-report metamemory questionnaires. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 687–
1102 700. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.5.687
1103 Hertzog, C., Lineweaver, T. T., & Hines, J. C. (2014). Computerized assessment of age
1104 differences in memory beliefs. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 119(2), 609–628.
1105 https://doi.org/10.2466/03.10.PMS.119c23z4
1106 Hertzog, C., & Pearman, A. (2013). Memory complaints in adulthood and old age. In T.
1107 Perfect & D. S. Lindsay, The SAGE Handbook of Applied Memory (pp. 423–443).
1108 SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294703.n24
1109 Hogan, C., Cornwell, P., Fleming, J., Man, D. W. K., & Shum, D. (2021). Self-reported
1110 prospective memory after stroke. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 31(8), 1190–
1111 1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2020.1769686
1112 Hulicka, I. M. (1982). Memory functioning in late adulthood. In F. I. M. Craik & S. Trehub
1113 (Eds.), Aging and Cognitive Processes (pp. 331–351). Springer US.
1114 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4178-9_18
1115 Hultsch, D. F., Dixon, R. A., & Hertzog, C. (1985). Memory perceptions and memory
1116 performance in adulthood and aging. Canadian Journal on Aging, 4(4), 179–188.
1117 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980800004852
1118 Hultsch, D. F., Hertzog, C., & Dixon, R. A. (1987). Age differences in metamemory:
1119 Resolving the inconsistencies. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41(2), 193–208.
1120 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084153
1121 Hülür, G., Willis, S. L., Hertzog, C., Schaie, K. W., & Gerstorf, D. (2018). Is subjective
1122 memory specific for memory performance or general across cognitive domains?
1123 Findings from the Seattle Longitudinal Study. Psychology and Aging, 33(3), 448–460.
1124 https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000243
1125 Hwang, E. H., & Kim, K. H. (2019). Effects of cognition, daily-living stress, and health-
1126 promotion behavior on subjective memory complaints by community-dwelling elders.
1127 Journal of Korean Gerontological Nursing, 21(3), 135–143.
1128 https://doi.org/10.17079/jkgn.2019.21.3.135
1129 Illman, N. A., Moulin, C. J. A., & Kemp, S. (2015). Assessment of everyday memory
1130 functioning in temporal lobe epilepsy and healthy adults using the Multifactorial
1131 Memory Questionnaire (MMQ). Epilepsy Research, 113, 86–89.
1132 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2015.03.011
1133 Irak, M., & Çapan, D. (2018). Beliefs about memory as a mediator of relations between
1134 metacognitive beliefs and actual memory performance. The Journal of General
1135 Psychology, 145(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2017.1411682
1136 Johnson, M. K., Foley, M. A., Suengas, A. G., & Raye, C. L. (1988). Phenomenal
1137 characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined autobiographical events.
1138 Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(4), 371–376.
1139 https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.117.4.371
1140 Kahn, R. L., & Miller, N. E. (1978). Adaptational factors in memory function in the aged.
1141 Experimental Aging Research, 4(4), 273–289.
1142 https://doi.org/10.1080/03610737808257151
1143 Kahn, R. L., Zarit, S. H., Hilbert, N. M., & Niederehe, G. (1975). Memory complaint and
1144 impairment in the aged: The effect of depression and altered brain function. Archives
1145 of General Psychiatry, 32(12), 1569–1573.
1146 https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1975.01760300107009
1147 Kinsella, G. J., Mullaly, E., Rand, E., Ong, B., Burton, C., Price, S., Phillips, M., & Storey, E.
1148 (2009). Early intervention for mild cognitive impairment: A randomised controlled
1149 trial. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 80(7), 730–736.
1150 https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2008.148346
1151 Kinzer, A., & Suhr, J. A. (2016). Dementia worry and its relationship to dementia exposure,
1152 psychological factors, and subjective memory concerns. Applied Neuropsychology:
1153 Adult, 23(3), 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2015.1030669
1154 Kliegel, M., & JÄger, T. (2006). Can the prospective and retrospective memory questionnaire
1155 (PRMQ) predict actual prospective memory performance? Current Psychology, 25(3),
1156 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-006-1002-8
1157 Koss, E., Patterson, M. B., Ownby, R., Stuckey, J. C., & Whitehouse, P. J. (1993). Memory
1158 evaluation in alzheimer’s disease: Caregivers’ appraisals and objective testing.
1159 Archives of Neurology, 50(1), 92–97.
1160 https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1993.00540010086023
1161 Kuczek, M., Szpitalak, M., & Polczyk, R. (2018). Psychometric properties and correlates of
1162 the Polish version of the Squire Subjective Memory Questionnaire (SSMQ).
1163 Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 271–275.
1164 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.021
1165 Lachman, M. E., Bandura, M., Weaver, S. L., & Elliott, E. (1995). Assessing memory control
1166 beliefs: The Memory Controllability Inventory. Aging, Neuropsychology, and
1167 Cognition, 2(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825589508256589
1168 Lanciano, T., Curci, A., & Basile, P. (2019). Do psychopathic traits impair autobiographical
1169 memory for emotional life experiences? Memory, 27(5), 660–672.
1170 https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2018.1551493
1171 Larrabee, G. J., & Levin, H. S. (1986). Memory self-ratings and objective test performance in
1172 a normal elderly sample. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,
1173 8(3), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/01688638608401318
1174 Lineweaver, T. T., & Brolsma, J. W. (2014). How you ask matters: An experimental
1175 investigation of the influence of mood on memory self-perceptions and their
1176 relationship with objective memory. Memory, 22(8), 1103–1115.
1177 https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.870209
1178 Lineweaver, T. T., Fansler, S. D., Horhota, M., Crumley-Branyon, J. J., & Wright, M. K.
1179 (2021). Older adults’ memory beliefs predict perceptions of memory strategy
1180 difficulty and effectiveness. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 0(0), 1–12.
1181 https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2021.1962794
1182 Lineweaver, T. T., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Adults’ efficacy and control beliefs regarding
1183 memory and aging: Separating general from personal beliefs. Aging,
1185 https://doi.org/10.1076/anec.5.4.264.771
1186 Luchetti, M., & Sutin, A. R. (2016). Measuring the phenomenology of autobiographical
1187 memory: A short form of the Memory Experiences Questionnaire. Memory, 24(5),
1188 592–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1031679
1189 Ma, L. (2020). Depression, anxiety, and apathy in mild cognitive impairment: Current
1190 perspectives. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 12, 9.
1191 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2020.00009
1192 Maki, N., Ikeda, M., Hokoishi, K., Nomura, M., Torikawa, S., Fujimoto, N., Komori, K.,
1193 Hirono, N., & Tanabe, H. (2000). Interrater reliability of the short-memory
1194 questionnaire in a variety of health professional representatives. International Journal
1195 of Geriatric Psychiatry, 15(4), 373–375.
1196 Maki, Y., Janssen, S. M. J., Uemiya, A., & Naka, M. (2013). The phenomenology and
1197 temporal distributions of autobiographical memories elicited with emotional and
1198 neutral cue words. Memory, 21(3), 286–300.
1199 https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.725739
1200 Man, D., Fleming, J., Hohaus, L., & Shum, D. (2011). Development of the Brief Assessment
1201 of Prospective Memory (BAPM) for use with traumatic brain injury populations.
1202 Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 21(6), 884–898.
1203 https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2011.627270
1204 Man, D., Yip, C., Lee, G., Fleming, J., & Shum, D. (2015). Self-report prospective memory
1205 problems in people with stroke. Brain Injury, 29(3), 329–335.
1206 https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2014.974672
1207 Mather, M., Henkel, L. A., & Johnson, M. K. (1997). Evaluating characteristics of false
1208 memories: Remember/know judgments and memory characteristics questionnaire
1209 compared. Memory & Cognition, 25(6), 826–837.
1210 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211327
1211 McDonough, I. M., McDougall, G. J., LaRocca, M., Dalmida, S. G., & Arheart, K. L. (2019).
1212 Refining the Metamemory in Adulthood questionnaire: A 20-item version of change
1213 and capacity designed for research and clinical settings. Aging & Mental Health,
1214 24(7), 1054–1063. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2019.1594160
1215 McMillan, T. M. (1984). Investigation of everyday memory in normal subjects using the
1216 Subjective Memory Questionnaire (SMQ). Cortex, 20(3), 333–347.
1217 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(84)80002-7
1218 Miller, M., Hogue, O., Hogan, T., & Busch, R. M. (2019). Naming decline after epilepsy
1219 surgery is associated with subjective language complaints. Epilepsy & Behavior, 99,
1220 106484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2019.106484
1221 Miller, M., Honomichl, R., Lapin, B., Hogan, T., Thompson, N., Barr, W. B., Friedman, D.,
1222 Sieg, E., Schuele, S., Kurtish, S. Y., Özkara, C., Lin, K., Wiebe, S., Jehi, L., & Busch,
1223 R. M. (2020). he Memory Assessment Clinics Scale for Epilepsy (MAC-E): A brief
1224 measure of subjective cognitive complaints in epilepsy. The Clinical
1225 Neuropsychologist, 0(0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2020.1837245
1226 Mogle, J. A., Hill, N., Bhang, I., Bhargava, S., Whitaker, E., & Kitt-Lewis, E. (2020). Time
1227 frame, problem specificity, and framing: The implicit structures of questions about
1228 memory in older adults. Aging & Mental Health, 24(1), 56–62.
1229 https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2018.1523882
1230 Mogle, J. A., Hill, N. L., Bell, T. R., Bhargava, S., & Bratlee-Whitaker, E. (2021). The factor
1231 structure of items assessing subjective memory: Between-persons and within-persons
1232 across time. Gerontology, 67(3), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1159/000513728
1233 Mogle, J. A., Hill, N., & McDermott, C. (2017). Subjective memory in a national sample:
1234 Predicting psychological well-being. Gerontology, 63(5), 460–468.
1235 https://doi.org/10.1159/000466691
1236 Mogle, J. A., Muñoz, E., Hill, N. L., Smyth, J. M., & Sliwinski, M. J. (2019). Daily memory
1237 lapses in adults: Characterization and influence on affect. The Journals of
1238 Gerontology: Series B, 74(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbx012
1239 Montgomery, W., Goren, A., Kahle-Wrobleski, K., Nakamura, T., & Ueda, K. (2018).
1240 Detection, diagnosis, and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease dementia stratified by
1241 severity as reported by caregivers in Japan. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment,
1242 14, 1843–1854. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S160591
1243 Newby, J. M., & Moulds, M. L. (2011). Intrusive memories of negative events in depression:
1244 Is the centrality of the event important? Journal of Behavior Therapy and
1245 Experimental Psychiatry, 42(3), 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2010.12.011
1246 Öner, S., & Gülgöz, S. (2018). Autobiographical remembering regulates emotions: A
1247 functional perspective. Memory, 26(1), 15–28.
1248 https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1316510
1249 Ossher, L., Flegal, K. E., & Lustig, C. (2013). Everyday memory errors in older adults.
1250 Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 20(2), 220–242.
1251 https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2012.690365
1252 Palombo, D. J., Williams, L. J., Abdi, H., & Levine, B. (2013). The Survey of
1253 Autobiographical Memory (SAM): A novel measure of trait mnemonics in everyday
1254 life. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior,
1255 49(6), 1526–1540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.08.023
1256 Payne, B. R., Gross, A. L., Hill, P. L., Parisi, J. M., Rebok, G. W., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L.
1257 (2017). Decomposing the relationship between cognitive functioning and self-referent
1258 memory beliefs in older adulthood: What’s memory got to do with it? Aging,
1260 https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2016.1218425
1261 Pearman, A., Hertzog, C., & Gerstorf, D. (2014). Little evidence for links between memory
1262 complaints and memory performance in very old age: Longitudinal analyses from the
1263 Berlin Aging Study. Psychology and Aging, 29(4), 828–842.
1264 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037141
1265 Pearman, A., & Trujillo, A. (2013). Changes in memory prediction accuracy: Age and
1266 performance effects. Educational Gerontology, 39(7), 467–475.
1267 https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2012.701132
1268 Pires, C., Silva, D., Maroco, J., Ginó, S., Mendes, T., Schmand, B. A., Guerreiro, M., & de
1269 Mendonça, A. (2012). Memory complaints associated with seeking clinical care.
1270 International Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 2012, e725329.

1271 https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/725329
1272 Ponds, R. W., & Jolles, J. (1996a). Memory complaints in elderly people: The role of
1273 memory abilities, metamemory, depression, and personality. Educational
1274 Gerontology, 22(4), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/0360127960220404
1275 Ponds, R. W., & Jolles, J. (1996b). The Abridged Dutch Metamemory in Adulthood (MIA)
1276 Questionnaire: Structure and effects of age, sex, and education. Psychology and
1277 Aging, 11(2), 324–332. https://doi.org/10.1037//0882-7974.11.2.324
1278 Poon, L. W., Fozard, J. L., & Treat, N. J. (1978). From clinical and research findings on
1279 memory to intervention programs. Experimental Aging Research, 4(4), 235–253.
1280 https://doi.org/10.1080/03610737808257149
1281 Reid, M., Parkinson, L., Gibson, R., Schofield, P., D’Este, C., Attia, J., Tavener, M., &
1282 Byles, J. (2012). Memory Complaint Questionnaire performed poorly as screening
1283 tool: Validation against psychometric tests and affective measures. Journal of Clinical
1284 Epidemiology, 65(2), 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.006
1285 Riege, W. (1983). Self-report and tests of memory aging. Clinical Gerontologist, 1(2), 23–36.
1286 https://doi.org/10.1300/J018v01n02_03
1287 Rowell, S. F., Green, J. S., Teachman, B. A., & Salthouse, T. A. (2016). Age does not matter:
1288 Memory complaints are related to negative affect throughout adulthood. Aging &
1289 Mental Health, 20(12), 1255–1263. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2015.1078284
1290 Royle, J., & Lincoln, N. B. (2008). The Everyday Memory Questionnaire-revised:
1291 Development of a 13-item scale. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30(2), 114–121.
1292 https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280701223876
1293 Rubin, D. C., Schrauf, R. W., & Greenberg, D. L. (2003). Belief and recollection of
1294 autobiographical memories. Memory & Cognition, 31(6), 887–901.
1295 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196443
1296 Ryan, E. B. (1992). Beliefs about memory changes across the adult life span. Journal of
1297 Gerontology, 47(1), P41–P46. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/47.1.P41
1298 Salis, C., Murray, L., & Vonk, J. (2019). Systematic review of subjective memory measures
1299 to inform assessing memory limitations after stroke and stroke-related aphasia.
1300 Disability and Rehabilitation, 43, 1–19.
1301 https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1668485
1302 Sander, A. M., Clark, A. N., van Veldhoven, L. M., Hanks, R., Hart, T., Leon Novelo, L.,
1303 Ngan, E., & Arciniegas, D. B. (2018). Factor analysis of the everyday memory
1304 questionnaire in persons with traumatic brain injury. The Clinical Neuropsychologist,
1305 32(3), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1368714
1306 Schmand, B., Jonker, C., Hooijer, C., & Lindeboom, J. (1996). Subjective memory
1307 complaints may announce dementia. Neurology, 46(1), 121–125.
1308 https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.46.1.121
1309 Schmidt, I. W., Berg, I. J., & Deelman, B. G. (2001). Relations between subjective
1310 evaluations of memory and objective memory performance. Perceptual and Motor
1311 Skills, 93(3), 761–776. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2001.93.3.761
1312 Sehulster, J. R. (1981). Structure and pragmatics of a self-theory of memory. Memory &
1313 Cognition, 9(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196960
1314 Selarka, D., Rosenbaum, R. S., Lapp, L., & Levine, B. (2019). Association between self-
1315 reported and performance-based navigational ability using internet-based remote
1316 spatial memory assessment. Memory, 27(5), 723–728.
1317 https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2018.1554082
1318 Shaikh, K. T., Tatham, E. L., Parikh, P. K., McCreath, G. A., Rich, J. B., & Troyer, A. K.
1319 (2019). Development and psychometric validation of a questionnaire assessing the
1320 impact of memory changes in older adults. The Gerontologist, 59(4), e248–e257.
1321 https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny011
1322 Siedlecki, K. L., Hicks, S., & Kornhauser, Z. G. C. (2015). Examining the positivity effect in
1323 autobiographical memory across adulthood. The International Journal of Aging and
1324 Human Development, 80(3), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091415015590311
1325 Silva, D., Guerreiro, M., Faria, C., Maroco, J., Schmand, B. A., & Mendonça, A. de. (2014).
1326 Significance of subjective memory complaints in the clinical setting. Journal of
1327 Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 27(4), 259–265.
1328 https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988714532018
1329 Smith, G., Sala, S. D., Logie, R. H., & Maylor, E. A. (2000). Prospective and retrospective
1330 memory in normal ageing and dementia: A questionnaire study. Memory, 8(5), 311–
1331 321. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210050117735
1332 Snitz, B. E., Small, B. J., Wang, T., Chang, C.-C. H., Hughes, T. F., & Ganguli, M. (2015).
1333 Do subjective memory complaints lead or follow objective cognitive change? A five-
1334 year population study of temporal influence. Journal of the International
1335 Neuropsychological Society, 21(9), 732–742.
1336 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617715000922
1337 Spano, G., Caffò, A. O., Lanciano, T., Curci, A., & Bosco, A. (2020). Visuospatial/executive
1338 abilities and mood affect the reliability of a subjective memory complaints measure.
1339 Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 32(7), 1317–1326.
1340 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-019-01307-2
1341 Squire, L. R., Wetzel, C. D., & Slater, P. C. (1979). Memory complaint after
1342 electroconvulsive therapy: Assessment with a new self-rating instrument. Biological
1343 Psychiatry, 14(5), 791–801.
1344 Sugden, N., Thomas, M., & Kiernan, M. (2021). A scoping review of the utility of self-report
1345 and informant-report prospective memory measures. Neuropsychological
1346 Rehabilitation, 0(0), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2021.1875851
1347 Sugden, N., Thomas, M., Kiernan, M., & Wilesmith, M. (2021). Validation of the
1348 Prospective Memory Concerns Questionnaire (PMCQ). Frontiers in Human
1349 Neuroscience, 15, 686850. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.686850
1350 Sunderland, A., Harris, J. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1983). Do laboratory tests predict everyday
1351 memory? A neuropsychological study. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
1352 Behavior, 22(3), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90229-3
1353 Sunderland, A., Harris, J. E., & Gleave, J. (1984). Memory failures in everyday life following
1354 severe head injury. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 6(2), 127–142.
1355 https://doi.org/10.1080/01688638408401204
1356 Sunderland, A., Watts, K., Baddeley, A. D., & Harris, J. E. (1986). Subjective memory
1357 assessment and test performance in elderly adults. Journal of Gerontology, 41(3),
1358 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/41.3.376
1359 Sutin, A. R., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Phenomenology of autobiographical memories: The
1360 Memory Experiences Questionnaire. Memory, 15(4), 390–411.
1361 https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701256654
1362 Talarico, J. M., LaBar, K. S., & Rubin, D. C. (2004). Emotional intensity predicts
1363 autobiographical memory experience. Memory & Cognition, 32(7), 1118–1132.
1364 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196886
1365 Tarantini, L., Bader, R., & Mecklinger, A. (2021). The ERP correlate of episodic recollection
1366 is a neurocognitive determinant of subjective memory complaints: Implications on
1367 their predictive validity. Neuropsychology, 35(7), 742–761.
1368 https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000756
1369 Thana-Udom, K., Siddarth, P., Miller, K. J., Dunkin, J. J., Small, G. W., & Ercoli, L. M.
1370 (2021). The effect of memory training on memory control beliefs in older adults with
1371 subjective memory complaints. Experimental Aging Research, 47(2), 131–144.
1372 https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2020.1861841
1373 Tropp, M., Persson, C., Samuelsson, K., Lundqvist, A. M., & Levander, S. (2015). Self-
1374 ratings of everyday memory problems in patients with acquired brain injury: A tool
1375 for rehabilitation. International Journal of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation, 3(2).
1376 Troyer, A. K. (2001). Improving memory knowledge, satisfaction, and functioning via an
1377 education and intervention program for older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and
1378 Cognition, 8(4), 256–268. https://doi.org/10.1076/anec.8.4.256.5642
1379 Troyer, A. K., & Rich, J. B. (2002). Psychometric properties of a new metamemory
1380 questionnaire for older adults. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological
1381 Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(1), P19-27.
1382 Vale, F. A. C., Balieiro-Jr, A. P., Silva-Filho, J. H., Vale, F. A. C., Balieiro-Jr, A. P., & Silva-
1383 Filho, J. H. (2012). Memory complaint scale (MCS): Proposed tool for active
1384 systematic search. Dementia & Neuropsychologia, 6(4), 212–218.
1385 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-57642012DN06040004
1386 Van Bergen, S., Brands, I., Jelicic, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2010). Assessing trait memory
1387 distrust: Psychometric properties of the Squire Subjective Memory Questionnaire.
1388 Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15(2), 373–384.
1389 https://doi.org/10.1348/135532509X471960
1390 Van Bergen, S., Jelicic, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2009). Are subjective memory problems
1391 related to suggestibility, compliance, false memories, and objective memory
1392 performance? The American Journal of Psychology, 122(2), 249–257.
1393 van der Werf, S., & Vos, S. (2011). Memory worries and self-reported daily forgetfulness: A
1394 psychometric evaluation of the Dutch translation of the Multifactorial Memory
1395 Questionnaire. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 25(2), 244–268.
1396 https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2010.543290
1397 Vannucci, M., Chiorri, C., & Favilli, L. (2021). Web-based assessment of the
1398 phenomenology of autobiographical memories in young and older adults. Brain
1399 Sciences, 11(5), 660. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11050660
1400 Vannucci, M., Chiorri, C., & Marchetti, I. (2020). Shaping our personal past: Assessing the
1401 phenomenology of autobiographical memory and its association with object and
1402 spatial imagery. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 61(5), 599–606.
1403 https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12639
1404 Vaskivuo, L., Hokkanen, L., Hänninen, T., Antikainen, R., Bäckman, L., Laatikainen, T.,
1405 Paajanen, T., Stigsdotter-Neely, A., Strandberg, T., Tuomilehto, J., Soininen, H.,
1406 Kivipelto, M., & Ngandu, T. (2018). Associations between prospective and
1407 retrospective subjective memory complaints and neuropsychological performance in
1408 older adults: The finger study. Journal of the International Neuropsychological
1409 Society, 24(10), 1099–1109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135561771800053X
1410 Viviano, R. P., & Damoiseaux, J. S. (2020). Functional neuroimaging in subjective cognitive
1411 decline: Current status and a research path forward. Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy,
1412 12(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00591-9
1413 Vogel, A., Salem, L. C., Andersen, B. B., & Waldemar, G. (2016). Differences in quantitative
1414 methods for measuring subjective cognitive decline – results from a prospective
1415 memory clinic study. International Psychogeriatrics, 28(9), 1513–1520.
1416 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610216000272
1417 Waters, T. E. A., Bohanek, J. G., Marin, K., & Fivush, R. (2013). Null’s the word: A
1418 comparison of memory quality for intensely negative and positive events. Memory,
1419 21(6), 633–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.745877
1420 Wessel, I., Schweig, T., & Huntjens, R. J. C. (2019). Manipulating the reported age in earliest
1421 memories. Memory, 27(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1396345
1422 West, R. L., Boatwright, L. K., & Schleser, R. (1984). The link between memory
1423 performance, self-assessment, and affective status. Experimental Aging Research,
1424 10(4), 197–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610738408258464
1425 Winterling, D., Crook, T. H., Salama, M., & Gobert, J. (1986). A self-rating scale for
1426 assessing memory loss. In Senile dementias: Early detection (pp. 482–486). John
1427 Libbey Eurotext.
1428 Yim, S. J., Yi, D., Byun, M. S., Choe, Y. M., Choi, H. J., Baek, H., Sohn, B. K., Kim, J. W.,
1429 Kim, E.-J., & Lee, D. Y. (2017). Screening ability of subjective memory complaints,
1430 informant-reports for cognitive decline, and their combination in memory clinic
1431 setting. Psychiatry Investigation, 14(5), 640–646.
1432 https://doi.org/10.4306/pi.2017.14.5.640
1433 Yoon, J.-S., Charness, N., Boot, W. R., Czaja, S. J., & Rogers, W. A. (2019). Depressive
1434 symptoms as a predictor of memory complaints in the PRISM sample. The Journals
1435 of Gerontology: Series B, 74(2), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbx070
1436 Youn, J. C., Kim, K. W., Lee, D. Y., Jhoo, J. H., Lee, S. B., Park, J. H., Choi, E. A., Choe, J.
1437 Y., Jeong, J. W., Choo, I. H., & Woo, J. I. (2009). Development of the Subjective
1438 Memory Complaints Questionnaire. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders,
1439 27(4), 310–317. https://doi.org/10.1159/000205512
1440 Youn, J. C., Lee, D. Y., Jhoo, J. H., Lee, S. B., Park, J. H., Choe, J. Y., Choo, I., & Kim, K.
1441 W. (2019). He utility of subset of Subjective Memory Complaint Questionnaire and
1442 Mini-Mental State Examination for Dementia screening. Korean Association for
1443 Geriatric Psychiatry, 23(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.47825/jkgp.2019.23.1.33
1444 Zarit, S. H., Cole, K. D., & Guider, R. L. (1981). Memory training strategies and subjective
1445 complaints of memory in the aged. The Gerontologist, 21(2), 158–164.
1446 https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/21.2.158
1447 Zarit, S. H., Gallagher, D., & Kramer, N. (1981). Memory training in the community aged:
1448 Effects on depression, memory complaint, and memory performance. Educational
1449 Gerontology, 6(1), 11–27.
1450 Zelinski, E. M., & Gilewski, M. J. (2004). A 10-item Rasch modeled memory self-efficacy
1451 scale. Aging & Mental Health, 8(4), 293–306.
1452 https://doi.org/10.1080/13607860410001709665
1453 Zelinski, E. M., Gilewski, M., & Thompson, L. (1980). Do laboratory tests relate to self-
1454 assessment of memory ability in the young and old? In New Directions in Memory
1455 and Aging (PLE: Memory): Proceedings of the George A. Talland Memorial
1456 Conference (pp. 519–544). Psychology Press.
1457
1458 Tables
1459 Table 1
1460 Metamemory Questionnaires Currently in Use
Characteristics
Response
Questionnaire Reference Purpose Items General Self-
scale Forgetting Change Control Strategy Additional
ability efficacy
Metamemory in (Dixon & Examine 120 5-point X X X X Task, Anxiety,
Adulthood (MIA) Hultsch, 1983) metamemory in Activity,
adulthood Achievement
Memory (Gilewski, Examine subjective 64 7-point X X X X Seriousness of

Functioning Zelinski, & memory and forgetting
Questionnaire Schaie, 1990) objective
(MFQ) performance
Personal Beliefs (Lineweaver & Measure beliefs 57 Continuous X X X X Relative

about Memory Hertzog, 1998) about one’s own standing
Instrument (PBMI) memory
General Beliefs (Lineweaver & Measure beliefs 27 Continuous X X X

about Memory Hertzog, 1998) about memory for
Instrument (GBMI) an average healthy
adult
Multifactorial (Troyer & Rich, Assess self-reported 57 5-point X X

Memory 2002) memory for use in Contentment
Questionnaire clinical
(MMQ) assessments.
1461 Note. Revised versions of questionnaires are not included in this table.
1462
1463 Table 2
1464 Memory Self-efficacy Questionnaires Currently in Use
Characteristics
Response
Questionnaire Reference Purpose Items Ability to Frequency of
scale Additional
remember forgetting
Short Inventory of (Herrmann & Examine frequency of forgetting and 12 7-point X X
Memory Experiences Neisser, 1978) clarity of remembering experiences.
(SIME) Shortened version of the IME.
Squire Subjective (Squire et al., Examine memory complaints before and 18 9-point X X
Memory Questionnaire 1979) after electroconvulsive therapy and
(SSMQ) general subjective memory evaluation.
Subjective Memory (Bennett‐Levy Measure subjective memory abilities in 43 5-point X X

Questionnaire (SMQ) & Powell, adults.
1980)
Memory Self-Efficacy (Berry et al., Measure of self-efficacy for use in 50 Yes/No & X
Questionnaire (MSEQ) 1989) developmental research and individual confidence
differences in memory ability evaluations. rating
Memory Controllability (Lachman et Measure beliefs about memory ability and 12 7-point X Potential improvement,
Inventory (MCI) al., 1995) control. effort utility, inevitable
decrement
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471 Table 3
1472 Memory Complaints Questionnaires Currently in Use
Characteristics
Response
Questionnaire Reference Purpose Items Ability to Frequency of General Comparison
scale Additional
remember forgetting ability
Everyday Memory (Sunderland et Examine memory failures 35 5-point X
Questionnaire (EMQ) al., 1983) in everyday life.
Memory Assessment (Winterling et al., Assess memory complaints 49 5-point X X

Clinics, Self-Rating 1986) in adults.
Scale (MAC-S)
Memory Complaint (Crook et al., Assess age-related 6 5-point X X X

Questionnaire (MAC- 1992) memory decline as
Q) compared to high school or
college.
Subjective Memory (Youn et al., Examine subjective 14 Yes/No X X X

Complaints 2009) memory complaints in
Questionnaire (SMCQ) older adults in research
and clinical settings.
Memory Complaints (Vale et al., Actively search for 7 3-point X X X Impact on

Scale (MCS) 2012) memory complaints daily
activities
Prospective Memory (Sugden, Assess memory complaints 35 4-point X

Concerns Thomas, Kiernan, regarding prospective
Questionnaire (PMCQ) et al., 2021) memory.
1474 Appendices
1475 Appendix A
1476 Metamemory Questionnaires Sample Items
Questionnaire Sample items

MIA I am good at remembering names. (Strongly Agree – Strongly Disagree)
Do you write appointments on a calendar to help you remember them?
(Always – Never)
MFQ How often do these present a problem for you? Phone numbers you use
frequently. (Always – Never)
How is memory compared to the way it was … 10 years ago? (Much
Better – Much Worse)
PBMI Compared to all adults my age, my memory is… (Much Above Average –
Much Below Average)
My ability to remember the source of information is… (Very Good –
Very Poor)
GBMI Ability to remember in general (Very Good – Very Poor)

Ability to remember to do something at a later time. (Very Good – Very
Poor)
MMQ I have confidence in my ability to remember things. (Strongly Agree –

Strongly Disagree)
How often do you forget to take medication? (All the Time – Never)
1477
1478
1479 Appendix B
1480 Self-efficacy Questionnaires Sample Items

SIME Do you remember the last time you went to see a doctor? (– Not at All)
How often are you unable to find something that you put down only a few
minutes before? (Always – Never)
SSMQ My ability to recall things that happened a long time ago is (Perfect –
Disastrous)
My ability to follow what people are saying is (Perfect – Disastrous)
SMQ How good is your memory for where you’ve got to in a book? (Very
Good – Very Bad)
How often do you forget what you were going to say mid-sentence?
(Very Often – Very Rarely)
MSEQ If I heard it twice, I could remember 12 items from a grocery list without
taking the list with me. (Yes – No, 10% – 100%)
If a friend asked me to do 10 errands, 5 minutes later I could remember 2
of the errands I had to do. (Yes – No, 10% – 100%)
MCI I can find ways to improve my memory (Strongly Agree – Strongly

Disagree)
No matter how much I use my memory it is bound to get worse as I get
older (Strongly Agree – Strongly Disagree)
1481
1482 Appendix C
1483 Memory Complaints Questionnaires Sample Items

EMQ Finding that a word is ‘on the tip of your tongue’. You know what it is but
cannot quite find it. (Once or less in the last month – Once or more in a
day)
Repeating to someone what you have just told them or asking someone
the same question twice. (Once or less in the last month – Once or more
in a day)
MAC-S How would you describe your ability to remember where you have put
objects (such as keys) in the home or office? (Very Good – Very Poor)
How often do you go into a room to get something and forget what you
are after? (Very Often – Very Rarely)
MAC-Q Remember the name of the person just introduced

(Much Better Now – Much Poorer Now)
Remembering the item you intended to buy when you arrive at the
grocery store or pharmacy (Much Better Now – Much Poorer Now)
SMCQ Do you think you have a memory problem? (Yes – No)

Do you have difficulty in remembering to turn off the gas or light? (Yes –
No)
MCS Do you have memory problems (or forgetfulness or memory difficulties)?

(Yes – No)
Does this memory problem hamper (or impair) your daily activities? (A
lot/Frequently – No)
PMCQ I walk into a room and forget why I went there (Always – Never)
I do things twice because I forget that I have already done them, e.g., take
a tablet twice (Always – Never)
1484

Memory Questionnaires

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Memory Questionnaires

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memory Questionnaires

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MEMORY QUESTIONNAIRES 1

9 Subjective memory measures: An overview of three types of memory questionnaires

12 Yashoda Gopi† & Christopher R. Madan

13 School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

21 Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.

23 Word count: 10,180

30 complaints. Although they provide a structured measure of self-reported memory, there is

31 some debate as to whether subjective evaluation accurately reflects memory abilities.

35 categories of subjective memory questionnaires: metamemory, self-efficacy, and complaints.

36 Factors influencing self-evaluation of memory including knowledge and beliefs about

44 Subjective memory measures: An overview of three types of memory questionnaires

50 abilities, or neuropsychological test batteries designed to assess multiple aspects of cognition

74 reasons, including validity, length, influence on self-perceptions, and limited direct

79 development and use of memory questionnaires.

82 self-efficacy, and memory complaints. Metamemory refers to an individual’s knowledge of

88 forgetting instances or difficulties in remembering in everyday life (Gilewski & Zelinski,

95 be administered in interviews, open-ended questionnaires, or questionnaires designed for use

97 different capacity, individuals may be asked to make task-specific predictions of their

98 expected performance on a forthcoming memory task, or to evaluate their performance on a

105 Memory Questionnaires

111 evaluations of abilities, and general knowledge of memory functioning. Questionnaires

127 Yoon et al., 2019).

151 Rich, 2002).

164 & Hultsch, 1983; Mogle et al., 2017, 2021).

170 additionally examines perceived seriousness of forgetting in specific situations (Gilewski,

196 (Illman et al., 2015; Troyer & Rich, 2002).

199 responding to global memory questions, respondents may rely on generalisations or

208 types may influence self-evaluations and responses.

210 Self-Efficacy Questionnaires

216 Table 2. See sample items in Appendix B.

228 narratives (Kuczek et al., 2018; Van Bergen et al., 2010).

230 A widely-used memory self-efficacy questionnaire is the Subjective Memory Questionnaire

240 To examine a particular aspect of memory self-efficacy, the Memory Controllability

244 Thana-Udom et al., 2021).

266 al., 2020).

276 questionnaires (Appendix B). In comparing two self-efficacy questionnaires Bennett‐Levy

287 incorporates self-efficacy strength in addition to self-efficacy level measured by confidence

297 Memory self-efficacy questionnaires examine self-perception of memory abilities in specific

304 participating in memory-demanding tasks as an individual’s self-efficacy evaluation may

314 reflect actual ability.

316 Complaints Questionnaires

323 sample items.

355 are warranted.

378 older adults.

382 attention systems, which is beneficial to separately address domain-specific difficulties

389 age (Reid et al., 2012).

426 necessary to compensate if memory problems interfere with accurate reporting.

428 Questionnaires Beyond the Scope of This Review

439 autobiographical memory questionnaires is provided here.

441 Patient Groups Questionnaires

457 2021; Kliegel & JÄger, 2006; Vaskivuo et al., 2018).

462 Assessment of Prospective Memory, a shortened version of the Comprehensive Assessment

476 Autobiographical Memory Questionnaires

478 Maguire, 2020). A well-established autobiographical memory questionnaire, the Memory

479 Characteristics Questionnaire (MCQ), was designed to examine ratings of memory

484 autobiographical and memory theories to examine the phenomenological characteristics of

489 Experiences Questionnaire (MEQ), was developed to examine the dimensions of