Spanish Version of the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ-S)

Abstract

The concept of prospective memory is relatively recent. Thus, it is necessary to have instruments to assess it, in interaction with retrospective memory. The Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ; Smith et al., 2000) is an instrument that has been effectively used for assessment in several languages. Nevertheless, there is still no Spanish adaptation. The aim of this study was to translate the PRMQ and obtain information about its psychometric properties. A back translation process was applied to the PRMQ. The resulting PRMQ-S was self-administered to 520 subjects after applying the pilot test. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test competing models of its latent structure. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. The results showed an adequate internal consistency of the total scale and the Prospective and Retrospective scales were: .89, .84 and .76, respectively. The factor structure was compared with the original study. Our results suggested a disagreement with the tripartite model defended by the authors of the PRMQ. Since there is a high correlation between two factors in the bi-factor model, and the tripartite model showed non-significant loadings to the two specific factors, we recommend that the PRMQ-S be used as one general memory score. We demonstrated adequate psychometric properties of the PRMQ-S if it is used as unique measurement of memory failures. These results are relevant due to the need for a short and accurate instrument in our language that explores memory failures, which has a major impact on the activities of daily living.

Subjective Memory Complaints in Portuguese Young Adults: Contributions from the Adaptation of the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire

“…A similar pattern was reported in studies using an exploratory factor analysis (Benites & Gomes, 2007; González-Ramírez & Mendoza-González, 2011). So far, only two studies found satisfactory item loadings for the tripartite model (Crawford et al, 2003; Rönnlund, Mäntylä & Nilsson, 2008).…”

“…Regarding the construct validity, although the tripartite model was the one with the best fit indices as already found in former investigations (Crawford et al, 2006; Crawford et al, 2003; González-Ramírez & Mendoza-González, 2011; Hsu & Hua, 2011; Piauilino et al, 2010; Rönnlund, Mäntylä & Nilsson, 2008; van der Werf & Vos, 2011), it was also observable that not all the items loaded in the expected factors. A similar pattern was reported in studies using an exploratory factor analysis (Benites & Gomes, 2007; González-Ramírez & Mendoza-González, 2011).…”

“…So far, only two studies found satisfactory item loadings for the tripartite model (Crawford et al, 2003; Rönnlund, Mäntylä & Nilsson, 2008). Interestingly, in other studies (Crawford et al, 2006; González-Ramírez & Mendoza-González, 2011), the items loaded higher when considering the model with only a general episodic memory factor, even if the fit indices were not satisfactory. Moreover, the Model 2 which showed a good correlation between PM and RM factors also pointed to shared variance among items, supporting an implicit general memory factor (González-Ramírez & Mendoza-González, 2011).…”

“…The construct validity was tested with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and the selected models were based in previous studies (Crawford et al, 2006; Crawford et al, 2003; González-Ramírez & Mendoza-González, 2011; Hsu & Hua, 2011; Piaulino et al, 2010; Rönnlund, Mäntylä & Nilsson, 2008). Three models were scrutinized: Model 1 that considered a general episodic memory factor underpinning covariance among the 16 items; Model 2 that deemed the existence of two associated factors, a PM and a RM factor; Model 3 that proposed an orthogonal tripartite approach with a general episodic memory, a PM factor which included all the PM items, and a RM factor comprising the RM items.…”

“…Additionally, in the study of Piauilino and colleagues (2010), the female participants showed more general memory failures than male participants. Concerning age, it is common to find no significant associations between age and PRMQ scores (Crawford et al, 2006; Crawford et al, 2003; Piauilino et al, 2010; Smith et al, 2000; van der Werf & Vos, 2011) or weak correlations between some scores (González-Ramírez & Mendoza-González, 2011; Hsu & Hua, 2011). Some of the former findings can be a result of large sample sizes (e.g., Crawford et al, 2003; González-Ramírez & Mendoza-González, 2011), since p-values are amenable to sample size variability (Cohen, 1990; Sullivan & Feinn, 2012).…”