Self-report measures of prospective memory are reliable but not valid.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are self-report measures of prospective memory (ProM) reliable and valid? To examine this question, 240 undergraduate student volunteers completed several widely used self-report measures of ProM including the Prospective Memory Questionnaire (PMQ), the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ), the Comprehensive Assessment of Prospective Memory (CAPM) questionnaire, self-reports of retrospective memory (RetM), objective measures of ProM and RetM, and measures of involvement in activities and events, memory strategies and aids use, personality and verbal intelligence. The results showed that both convergent and divergent validity of ProM self-reports are poor, even though we assessed ProM using a newly developed, reliable continuous measure. Further analyses showed that a substantial proportion of variability in ProM self-report scores was due to verbal intelligence, personality (conscientiousness, neuroticism), activities and event involvement (busyness), and use of memory strategies and aids. ProM self-reports have adequate reliability, but poor validity and should not be interpreted as reflecting ProM ability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it