Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:01:16.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychometric Properties of the French Version of the Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire for Adults and the Elderly

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2010

Isabelle Fort ,
Linda Adoul ,
Delphine Holl ,
Joël Kaddour  and
Kamel Gana
Isabelle Fort
Affiliation:
University Nancy 2, France
Linda Adoul
Affiliation:
University Nancy 2, France
Delphine Holl
Affiliation:
University Nancy 2, France
Joël Kaddour
Affiliation:
University Nancy 2, France
Kamel Gana*
Affiliation:
University Nancy 2, France
*
Requests for offprints should be sent to: / Les demandes de tirés-à-part doivent être adressées à : Prof. Kamel Gana, Groupe d'Analyse Psychométrique des conduites, Université Nancy 2, B.P. 3397, 54015 Nancy – France. (kamel.gana@univ-nancy2.fr)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of a French version of the Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire (MMQ) (Troyer & Rich, 2002). The MMQ, which is suited to clinical and research purposes, evaluates subjective memory functioning (i.e., affect related to memory abilities, frequency of problems remembering in different situations, and strategy use in everyday life). The questionnaire was administered to 294 French adult or elderly subjects (46–94 years old). The results allowed us to conclude that the French version of this scale is psychometrically sound. Indeed, the scores proved to be highly reliable (Cronbach's α for the subscales ranged from 0.79 to 0.88) and correlated in the expected directions with measures of other constructs (correlation coefficients ranged from −0.34 to 0.39). Convergent validity evidence for MMQ scores was provided by their statistically significant positive correlations (from 0.56 to 0.73) with several dimensions of the Metamemory in Adulthood scale (MIA) (i.e., the anxiety, change, capacity and strategy dimensions). However, the three-factor model found in the original version was not validated here. An exploratory factor analysis revealed that a four-factor solution offered the most interpretable pattern for the factor scores. Two of the dimensions proposed by Troyer and Rich (2002) were replicated: ability and contentment. The third subscale (strategy) was divided into two factors: internal strategies and external strategies.

Résumé

Cette recherche a pour objectif l'fetude des qualites psychometriques d'fune version francaise du Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire (MMQ) (Troyer et Rich, 2002). Le MMQ a ete elabore pour etre utilise a la fois dans une perspective clinique et dans une perspective de recherche. Il evalue le fonctionnement mnesique subjectif (c'fest-a-dire les affects relatifs aux aptitudes de memoire, l'foccurrence de problemes survenant dans differentes situations et l'futilisation de strategies dans la vie quotidienne). Le questionnaire a ete administre a 294 sujets adultes et ages (de 46 a 94 ans). Les resultats permettent de conclure que notre version presente de bonnes qualites psychometriques. En effet, ils ont montre la fiabilite du questionnaire (les coefficients α de Cronbach varient de 0,79 a 0,88 pour les differentes sous-echelles) et des correlations significatives dans le sens attendu avec d'fautres constructs (les coefficients de correlation varient entre -0,34 et 0,39). La validite convergente des scores au MMQ a ete mise en evidence par des correlations significatives positives avec plusieurs sous-echelles du Metamemory in Adulthood (MIA), a savoir les sous-echelles anxiete, changement, capacite et strategie. Cependant, la solution a trois facteurs obtenue avec la version originale n'fa pas ete validee dans notre etude. Une analyse factorielle exploratoire a montre qu'fune solution a quatre facteurs permet une interpretation plus adequate des scores. Deux des dimensions proposees par Troyer et Rich (2002) ont ete repliquees : les dimensions satisfaction et problemes. La troisieme sous-echelle (strategies) a ete subdivisee en deux facteurs : strategies internes et strategies externes.

Keywords

agingMultifactorial Memory Questionnairemetamemorypsychometric propertiesvalidationFrench versionvieillissementQuestionnaire de métamémoiremétamémoirevalidationvieillissementversion française
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , Winter/Hiver 2004 , pp. 347 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bolla, K.I., Lindgren, K.N., Bonaccorsy, C., & Bleecker, M.L. (1991). Memory complaints in older adults, fact or fiction? Archives of Neurology, 48, 61–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, E.B. (1992). Beliefs about memory changes across the adult life span. Journal of Gerontology, 47, 41–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boucheron, C. (1993). Mémoire, métamémoire et vieillissement. Unpublished thesis, University Nancy 2, France.Google Scholar
Bourque, P., Blanchard, L., & Vézina, J. (1990). Étude psychométrique de l'échelle de dépression gériatrique. Canadian Journal on Aging, 9, 348–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, W.J., Roccaforte, W.H., & Wengel, S.P. (1991). The short form of the Geriatric Depression Scale: A comparison with the 30-item form. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 4, 271–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavanaugh, J.C. (1998). Metamemory as social cognition: Challenges for (and from) survey research. In Schwarz, N., Park, D., Knauper, B., & Sudman, S. (Eds.), Cognition, aging and self-reports (pp. 145–162). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Cavanaugh, J.C., Feldman, J.M., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Memory beliefs as social cognition: A reconceptualization of what memory questionnaires assess. Review of General Psychology, 2(1), 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavanaugh, J.C., & Poon, L.W. (1989). Metamemorial predictors of memory performance in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 4, 365–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D.J. (1983). Self reports of memory ability by old and young adults. Human Learning, 2, 17–28.Google Scholar
Dérouesné, C. (1996). La plainte mnésique du sujet âgé. In Michel, B., Soumireu-Mourat, B., & Dubois, B. (Eds.), Système limbique et maladie d'Alzheimer (pp. 59–69). Marseille, France: Solal.Google Scholar
Dixon, R.A., & Hultsch, D.F. (1983). Structure and development of metamemory in adulthood. Journal of Gerontology, 38, 682–688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erber, J.T., Szuchman, L.T., & Rothberg, S.T. (1992). Dimensions of self-report about everyday memory in young and older adults. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 34, 311–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fort, I. (2000). La métamémoire: proposition de formalisation et étude de ses relations avec des performances de mémoire. Unpublished thesis, University Nancy 2, France.Google Scholar
Gilewski, M.J., & Zelinski, E.M. (1986). Questionnaire assessment of memory complaint. In Poon, L.W. (Ed.), Handbook for clinical memory assessment of older adults (pp. 93–107). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Gilewski, M.J., Zelinski, E.M., & Schaie, K.W. (1990). The Memory Functioning Questionnaire for assessment of memory complaints in adulthood and old age. Psychology and Aging, 5, 482–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herrmann, D.J. (1982). Know thy memory: The use of questionnaires to assess and study memory. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 434–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, D.J., & Neisser, U. (1978). An inventory of everyday memory experiences. In Gruneberg, M.M., Morris, P., & Sykes, R.N. (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 35–51). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hertzog, C., Dixon, R.A., & Hultsch, D.F. (1990). Metamemory in adulthood: Differentiating knowledge, belief and behavior. In Hess, T.M. (Ed.), Aging and cognition: knowledge, organisation and utilisation (pp. 161–212). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Hertzog, C., Hultsch, D.F., & Dixon, R.A. (1989). Evidence for the convergent validity of two self-report metamemory questionnaires. Developmental Psychology, 25, 687–700.Google Scholar
Hultsch, D.F., Hertzog, C., Dixon, R.A., & Davidson, H. (1988). Memory self-knowledge and self-efficacy in the aged. In Howe, M.L. & Brainerd, C.J. (Eds.), Cognitive development in adulthood: Progress in cognitive development research (pp. 65–92). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israël, L., & Waintraub, L. (1996). Questionnaire du fonctionnement de la mémoire: auto-évaluation des plaintes mnésiques. In Guelfi, J.D. (Ed.), L'évaluation clinique standardisée en psychiatrie (pp. 499–501). Paris: Éditions médicales Pierre Fabre.Google Scholar
Ide, S., McDougall, G.J., & Wykle, M.H. (1999). Memory awareness among Japanese nursing facility residents. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14, 601–607.Google Scholar
Johansson, B., Allen-Burge, R., & Zarit, S.H. (1997). Self-reports on memory functioning in a longitudinal study of the oldest old: Relations to current prospective and retrospective performances. Journal of Gerontology, 52, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, C.J., & Zelinski, E.M. (2003). Longitudinal hierarchical linear models of the Memory Functioning Questionnaire. Psychology and Aging, 18, 38–53.Google Scholar
Lineweaver, T.T., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Adults'efficacy and control beliefs regarding memory and aging: Separating general from personal beliefs. Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 5, 264–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, E.R., Shaw, R.J., & Craik, F.I.M. (1987). Age differences in components of metamemory. Experimental Aging Research, 16, 43–48.Google Scholar
McDougall, G.J. (1998). Memory awareness in nursing home residents. Gerontology, 44, 281–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald-Miszczak, L., Gould, O.N., & Tychynski, D. (1999). Metamemory predictors of prospective and retrospective memory performance. Journal of General Psychology, 126, 37–52.Google Scholar
Plotkin, D.A., Mintz, J., & Jarvik, L.F. (1985). Subjective memory complaints in geriatric depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 1103–1105.Google ScholarPubMed
Sheikh, J.I., & Yesavage, J.A. (1986). Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): Recent evidenœ and development of a shorter version. In Brink, T.L. (Ed.), Clinical gerontology: A guide to assessment and intervention (pp. 165–173). New York: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
Troyer, A.K. (2001). Improving memory knowledge, satisfaction, and functioning via an education and intervention program for older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 8, 256–268.Google Scholar
Troyer, A.K., & Rich, J.B. (2002). Psychometric properties of a new metamemory questionnaire for older adults. Journal of Gerontology, 57, 19–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, R.L., Thorn, R.M., & Bagwell, D.K. (2003). Memory performance and beliefs as a function of goal setting and aging. Psychology and Aging, 18, 111–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zelinski, E.M., Gilewski, M.J., & Thompson, L.W. (1980). Do laboratory tests relate to self-assessment of memory ability in young and old? In Poon, L.W., Fozard, J.L., Cermak, L.S., Arenberg, D., & Thompson, L.L. (Eds.), New directions in memory and aging (pp. 519–550). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar