Memory Compensation Strategies in Older People with Mild Cognitive Impairment

Abstract

Objectives:With the rapid growth of the older population worldwide, understanding how older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) use memory strategies to mitigate cognitive decline is important. This study investigates differences between amnestic and nonamnestic MCI subtypes in memory strategy use in daily life, and how factors associated with cognition, general health, and psychological well-being might relate to strategy use.Methods:One hundred forty-eight participants with MCI (mean age = 67.9 years, SD = 8.9) completed comprehensive neuropsychological, medical, and psychological assessments, and the self-report ‘Memory Compensation Questionnaire’. Correlational and linear regression analyses were used to explore relationships between memory strategy use and cognition, general health, and psychological well-being.Results:Memory strategy use does not differ between MCI subtypes (p > .007) despite higher subjective everyday memory complaints in those with amnestic MCI (p = .03). The most marked finding showed that increased reliance-type strategy use was significantly correlated with more subjective memory complaints and poorer verbal learning and memory (p < .01) in individuals with MCI. Moreover, fewer subjective memory complaints and better working memory significantly predicted (p < .05) less reliance strategy use, respectively, accounting for 10.6% and 5.3% of the variance in the model.Conclusions:In general, the type of strategy use in older adults with MCI is related to cognitive functioning. By examining an individual’s profile of cognitive dysfunction, a clinician can provide more personalized clinical recommendations regarding strategy use to individuals with MCI, with the aim of maintaining their day-to-day functioning and self-efficacy in daily life.

Systematic Review of Correlates of Internal and External Memory Strategy Use in Older Adults

“…The relationship between memory performance and EMS was mixed. Higher memory performance was weakly related to more EMS in a clinical sample (r = .13;McDougall et al, 2014); however, these constructs were not related in other clinical and non-clinical samples (rs < .09 with exception of one task r = À.17; Garrett et al, 2010;Lin et al, 2020). In the 6-year follow-up study described above (Dixon & de Frias, 2004), there were no differences in EMS based on memory performance at baseline, but those with better memory performance at Time 1 demonstrated an overall increase in use of EMS over 6 years (see limitation above).…”

“…Lower executive functioning, measured by the same composite above, was weakly associated with more EMS in a non-clinical sample (r = À.15; Bouazzaoui et al, 2010). However, performance on individual processing speed, working memory, and executive function measures were not associated with EMS for clinical and non-clinical samples (rs < .09; Frankenmolen et al, 2018;Lin et al, 2020).…”

“…Subjective Cognitive Ability. Higher perceived cognitive ability was related to more IMS regardless of clinical status (rs = .26-.54; Frankenmolen et al, 2017;Garrett et al, 2010;Lin et al, 2020). Another study examined informant rather than self-report of cognitive ability (for individuals with MCI) but found little to no relationship between informant reports of cognitive ability and IMS reported by the individuals with MCI (rs ≤ .10; Lin et al, 2020).…”

“…Higher perceived cognitive ability was related to more IMS regardless of clinical status (rs = .26-.54; Frankenmolen et al, 2017;Garrett et al, 2010;Lin et al, 2020). Another study examined informant rather than self-report of cognitive ability (for individuals with MCI) but found little to no relationship between informant reports of cognitive ability and IMS reported by the individuals with MCI (rs ≤ .10; Lin et al, 2020). However, higher perceived cognitive ability was related to more EMS for a clinical sample (r = .27; Lin et al, 2020) and for a non-clinical sample with and without subjective memory complaints (r = .19-.50; Frankenmolen et al, 2017), but not for another non-clinical sample (r = .09; Garrett et al, 2010).…”

“…Another study examined informant rather than self-report of cognitive ability (for individuals with MCI) but found little to no relationship between informant reports of cognitive ability and IMS reported by the individuals with MCI (rs ≤ .10; Lin et al, 2020). However, higher perceived cognitive ability was related to more EMS for a clinical sample (r = .27; Lin et al, 2020) and for a non-clinical sample with and without subjective memory complaints (r = .19-.50; Frankenmolen et al, 2017), but not for another non-clinical sample (r = .09; Garrett et al, 2010). There was no relationship between informant reports of cognitive ability and EMS reported by individuals with MCI (rs < .09; Lin et al, 2020).…”