The Dutch Memory Compensation Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Memory Compensation Questionnaire (MCQ) is a psychometrically sound instrument that assesses the variety and extent to which an individual compensates for actual or perceived memory losses. Until now, only an English version of the MCQ has been psychometrically evaluated. The aim of the present study was to establish a Dutch version of the MCQ and evaluate its psychometric properties. The MCQ data of N = 556 cognitively healthy adults (61.8% females) aged between 50.1 and 95.3 years (M = 73.9 years, SD = 8.0) were analyzed. The results showed that the factor structure of the Dutch version of the MCQ corresponded well with that of the English version of the MCQ. The reliabilities of the scales of the Dutch version of the MCQ were all high (all Cronbach's αs ≥ .77). Demographic variables (especially age and gender) affected most of the MCQ scale scores. Regression-based normative data that take these demographic influences into account were established, and a user-friendly computer program was provided to facilitate the scoring and norming of the MCQ.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".