2 Differences in Older Adults’ Compensatory Strategy Use Across Time-Based and Event-Based Prospective Memory Tasks

Abstract

Objective:

Older adults often spontaneously use compensatory strategies (CS) to support everyday memory and daily task completion. Recent work suggests that evaluating the quality of CS provides utility in predicting real-world prospective memory (PM) task completion. However, there has been little exploration of how CS quality may vary based on PM demands. This study examined differences in CS use and task completion accuracy across time-based (TB) and event-based (EB) PM tasks. Based on differences in self-monitoring demands and ability to engage in cognitive offloading, it was hypothesized that participants would utilize better quality strategies for TB tasks than EB tasks, which would lead to superior accuracy in completing TB tasks.

Participants and Methods:

Seventy community-dwelling older adults (Mage = 70.80, SD = 7.87) completed two testing sessions remotely from home via Zoom. Participants were presented two TB PM tasks (paying bill by due date, calling lab at specified time) and two EB PM tasks (presenting a packed bag to examiner upon a cue, initiating discussion about physical activity log upon cue). Participants were encouraged to use their typical CS to support task completion. Quality of CS (0-3 points per task step) and accuracy of task completion (0-4 points per task) were evaluated through lab-developed coding schemas. For each task, CS Quality scores were assigned based on how well strategies supported retrospective memory (RM) and PM task elements, and RM and PM Quality scores were summed to yield a Total Quality score. Because each task consisted of a different number of steps, CS Quality scores for each task were divided by their respective number of steps to yield measures of average quality. Paired-samples t-tests examined differences in average CS quality (Total, RM, and PM) and PM accuracy across TB and EB tasks.

Results:

Participants’ Total CS Quality was equivalent for TB tasks (M = 1.92, SD = 0.64) and EB tasks (M = 1.87, SD = 0.68), t(69) = 0.60, p = .55. Comparisons of subscores revealed that while participants used similar quality RM supports for TB tasks (M = 1.67, SD = 0.66) and EB tasks (M = 1.78, SD = 0.68), t(69) = 1.39, p = .17, participants utilized superior quality PM supports for TB tasks (M = 2.16, SD = 0.70) compared to EB tasks (M = 1.97, SD = 0.73), t(69) = 2.46, p = .02. Additionally, participants completed TB tasks with greater accuracy (M = 3.21, SD = 0.74) than EB tasks (M = 2.84, SD = 0.89), t(69) = 3.62, p < .001.

Conclusions:

While participants exhibited similar quality CS for RM components across TB and EB tasks, they displayed superior quality CS for PM components of TB tasks. This difference in quality may have contributed to participants completing real-world TB PM tasks with greater accuracy than EB tasks. Results contrast with trends in lab-based PM tasks, in which participants usually complete EB tasks more accurately. Findings may have implications for interventions, such as an enhanced focus on teaching high-quality CS to support real-world EB tasks.