A review of the literature shows that only a weak connection exists between objective memory tests and self-evaluation memory questionnaires. The object of the present study was to explore which of the mnemonic, affective or psychosocial factors influence subjective evaluation of the memory function. This study is composed of a self-evaluation memory questionnaire, an ecologic-type objective memory evaluation, two affective state measures, anxiety and depression, and an inventory of life events. Sixty elderly persons took part in the study. They were divided into two groups, with attribution to a group depending on whether or not they considered themselves to have problems with memory Results supported the hypothesis that subjective and objective evaluations of memory comprise different components. Contrary to an objective test, self-evaluation of memory is strongly related to affect rather than being a perfect representation of actual mnemonic ability and this in spite of the ecological character of the memory test.

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.