OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the proxy-rating version of the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ) and provide norms and methods for score interpretation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional and correlational. METHODS: The PRMQ was administered to a large sample drawn from the general adult population (N=570). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test competing models of its latent structure. Various psychometric methods were applied to provide clinicians with tools for score interpretation. RESULTS: The CFA model with optimal fit specified a general memory factor together with additional prospective and retrospective factors. The reliabilities of the PRMQ were acceptable (.83 to .92), and demographic variables did not influence ratings. Tables are presented for conversion of raw scores on the Total scale and Prospective and Retrospective scales to T scores. In addition, tables are provided to allow users to assess the reliability and abnormality of differences between proxy ratings on the Prospective and Retrospective scales. Finally, tables are also provided to compare proxy-ratings with self-ratings (using data from the present sample and self-rating data from a previous study). CONCLUSIONS: The proxy-rating version of the PRMQ provides a useful measure of everyday memory for use in clinical research and practice.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the proxy-rating version of the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ) and provide norms and methods for score interpretation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional and correlational. METHODS: The PRMQ was administered to a large sample drawn from the general adult population (N=570). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test competing models of its latent structure. Various psychometric methods were applied to provide clinicians with tools for score interpretation. RESULTS: The CFA model with optimal fit specified a general memory factor together with additional prospective and retrospective factors. The reliabilities of the PRMQ were acceptable (.83 to .92), and demographic variables did not influence ratings. Tables are presented for conversion of raw scores on the Total scale and Prospective and Retrospective scales to T scores. In addition, tables are provided to allow users to assess the reliability and abnormality of differences between proxy ratings on the Prospective and Retrospective scales. Finally, tables are also provided to compare proxy-ratings with self-ratings (using data from the present sample and self-rating data from a previous study). CONCLUSIONS: The proxy-rating version of the PRMQ provides a useful measure of everyday memory for use in clinical research and practice.
Authors: Laura A Rabin; Colette M Smart; Paul K Crane; Rebecca E Amariglio; Lorin M Berman; Mercé Boada; Rachel F Buckley; Gaël Chételat; Bruno Dubois; Kathryn A Ellis; Katherine A Gifford; Angela L Jefferson; Frank Jessen; Mindy J Katz; Richard B Lipton; Tobias Luck; Paul Maruff; Michelle M Mielke; José Luis Molinuevo; Farnia Naeem; Audrey Perrotin; Ronald C Petersen; Lorena Rami; Barry Reisberg; Dorene M Rentz; Steffi G Riedel-Heller; Shannon L Risacher; Octavio Rodriguez; Perminder S Sachdev; Andrew J Saykin; Melissa J Slavin; Beth E Snitz; Reisa A Sperling; Caroline Tandetnik; Wiesje M van der Flier; Michael Wagner; Steffen Wolfsgruber; Sietske A M Sikkes Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Judd B Kessler; Andrea B Troxel; David A Asch; Shivan J Mehta; Noora Marcus; Raymond Lim; Jingsan Zhu; William Shrank; Troyen Brennan; Kevin G Volpp Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Susanne I Steinberg; Selamawit Negash; Mary D Sammel; Hillary Bogner; Brian T Harel; Melissa G Livney; Hannah McCoubrey; David A Wolk; Mitchel A Kling; Steven E Arnold Journal: Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.035
Authors: David P Sheppard; Matthew W Gallagher; Erin E Morgan; Angulique Y Outlaw; Sylvie Naar; Steven Paul Woods Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 3.114