Self-report measures of prospective memory are reliable but not valid.

Abstract

Are self-report measures of prospective memory (ProM) reliable and valid? To examine this question, 240 undergraduate student volunteers completed several widely used self-report measures of ProM including the Prospective Memory Questionnaire (PMQ), the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ), the Comprehensive Assessment of Prospective Memory (CAPM) questionnaire, self-reports of retrospective memory (RetM), objective measures of ProM and RetM, and measures of involvement in activities and events, memory strategies and aids use, personality and verbal intelligence. The results showed that both convergent and divergent validity of ProM self-reports are poor, even though we assessed ProM using a newly developed, reliable continuous measure. Further analyses showed that a substantial proportion of variability in ProM self-report scores was due to verbal intelligence, personality (conscientiousness, neuroticism), activities and event involvement (busyness), and use of memory strategies and aids. ProM self-reports have adequate reliability, but poor validity and should not be interpreted as reflecting ProM ability.

Performance predictions affect attentional processes of event-based prospective memory

“…In Experiment 1, PM predictions with and without additional OT predictions were also inaccurate, but participants significantly over-estimated their PM performance. Based on this findings, one could simply argue that PM predictions, just as some ever-day PM questionnaires (Uttl & Kibreab, 2011), are not overly valid, because they are not in line with the objective criterion (i.e., PM performance).6 However, in the present study, participants were ask to predict their performance in a task and then actually had to perform the task they made predictions for. Thus, PM predictions have a high face-validity.…”

Prospective memory and future event simulation in individuals with alcohol dependence

“…On the other hand, there are several reasons for why self-reported PM may not necessarily reflect actual PM ability, most notably the fact that, to date, there is no compelling evidence for their validity (Uttl & Kibreab, 2011). Therefore, from both a theoretical and clinical perspective, research using objective PM assessments is likely to offer more meaningful results.…”

“…Although Heffernan and Bartholomew (2006) reported the PMQ to be a 'valid and reliable self report measure' (pp139), their claims regarding validity were not supported by any published evidence (Uttl & Kibreab, 2011) In view of the evident limitations associated with using self report measures for assessing PM performance, studies utilising more objective assessments of PM ability may be more suitable for identifying how recreational substance use chronically affects PM.…”

“…First of all, Uttl and Kibreab (2011) assert that PM experiences are affected by lifestyle, with busier people experiencing and thus reporting a greater number of PM errors. Indeed, the pattern of results in Ling et al (2010), in which clinically defined alcohol users reported fewer PM errors than a non-clinical high alcohol dose group, could well be understood from this perspective: In this study, the clinical group consisted of inpatients or outpatients shortly after discharge from hospital.…”

“…It contains 8 items assessing retrospective memory and 8 assessing prospective memory, and has produced chronbach alpha values of between 0.80 and 0.89 (Uttl & Kibreab, 2011). The PM scale has shown correlations with laboratory based PM tasks ranging from -0.22 to +0.13, whilst the retrospective memory scales has shown correlations from -0.22 to -0.09 with laboratory based memory tasks (Uttl & Kibreab, 2011).…”