OBJECTIVES: This study investigated subjective memory complaints in older adults and the roles of setting, response bias, and personality. DESIGN: Cognitively normal older adults from two settings completed questionnaires measuring memory complaints, response bias, and personality. SETTINGS: (A) Neuroimaging study with community-based recruitment and (B) academic memory clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Cognitively normal older adults who (A) volunteer for research (N = 92) or (B) self-referred to a memory clinic (N = 20). MEASUREMENTS: Neuropsychological evaluation and adjudication of normal cognitive status were done by the neuroimaging study or memory clinic. This study administered self-reports of subjective memory complaints, response bias, five-factor personality, and depressive symptoms. Primary group differences were examined with secondary sensitivity analyses to control for sex, age, and education differences. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in over-reporting response bias between study settings. Under-reporting response bias was higher in volunteers. Cognitive complaints were associated with response bias for two cognitive complaint measures. Neuroticism was positively associated with over-reporting in evaluation-seekers and negatively associated with under-reporting in volunteers. The relationship was reversed for Extraversion. Under-reporting bias was positively correlated with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness in volunteers. CONCLUSION: Evaluation-seekers do not show bias toward over-reporting symptoms compared to volunteers. Under-reporting response bias may be important to consider when screening for memory impairment in non-help-seeking settings. The Memory Functioning Questionnaire was less sensitive to reporting biases. Over-reporting may be a facet of higher Neuroticism. Findings help elucidate psychological influences on self-perceived cognitive decline and help seeking in aging and may inform different strategies for assessment by setting.
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated subjective memory complaints in older adults and the roles of setting, response bias, and personality. DESIGN: Cognitively normal older adults from two settings completed questionnaires measuring memory complaints, response bias, and personality. SETTINGS: (A) Neuroimaging study with community-based recruitment and (B) academic memory clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Cognitively normal older adults who (A) volunteer for research (N = 92) or (B) self-referred to a memory clinic (N = 20). MEASUREMENTS: Neuropsychological evaluation and adjudication of normal cognitive status were done by the neuroimaging study or memory clinic. This study administered self-reports of subjective memory complaints, response bias, five-factor personality, and depressive symptoms. Primary group differences were examined with secondary sensitivity analyses to control for sex, age, and education differences. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in over-reporting response bias between study settings. Under-reporting response bias was higher in volunteers. Cognitive complaints were associated with response bias for two cognitive complaint measures. Neuroticism was positively associated with over-reporting in evaluation-seekers and negatively associated with under-reporting in volunteers. The relationship was reversed for Extraversion. Under-reporting bias was positively correlated with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness in volunteers. CONCLUSION: Evaluation-seekers do not show bias toward over-reporting symptoms compared to volunteers. Under-reporting response bias may be important to consider when screening for memory impairment in non-help-seeking settings. The Memory Functioning Questionnaire was less sensitive to reporting biases. Over-reporting may be a facet of higher Neuroticism. Findings help elucidate psychological influences on self-perceived cognitive decline and help seeking in aging and may inform different strategies for assessment by setting.
Authors: Beth E Snitz; Oscar L Lopez; Eric McDade; James T Becker; Ann D Cohen; Julie C Price; Chester A Mathis; William E Klunk Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: T Hänninen; K J Reinikainen; E L Helkala; K Koivisto; L Mykkänen; M Laakso; K Pyörälä; P J Riekkinen Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 1994-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Robert D Nebes; Beth E Snitz; Ann D Cohen; Howard J Aizenstein; Judith A Saxton; Edythe M Halligan; Chester A Mathis; Julie C Price; M Ilyas Kamboh; Lisa A Weissfeld; William E Klunk Journal: Neuropsychologia Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 3.139