Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire: a comparison of young and older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire (MMQ; Troyer & Rich, [2002]. Psychometric properties of a new metamemory questionnaire for older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(1), P19–P27) is a widely used measure of subjective memory consisting of three scales: Satisfaction, Ability, and Strategies. Although subjective memory complaints are prevalent across different age groups, the factor structure and psychometric properties of the MMQ have yet to be examined in young adults. Here, we independently replicated the original MMQ factor structure in N = 408 young adults (YA) recruited from undergraduate courses and N = 327 older adults (OA) and, for the first time, assessed the age-invariance of the scale using measurement invariance testing. YAs made significantly higher ratings than OAs on MMQ-Satisfaction and MMQ-Strategies, indicating greater satisfaction with their memory and greater use of strategies, but the groups were similar on MMQ-Ability. The original MMQ factor structure was replicated in OAs but not in YAs, and age invariance was not supported. Future studies seeking to compare young and older adults could therefore consider either requesting modification of the MMQ for use with young adults or using a different scale.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".