Creation and Validation of the MMQ-9: A Short Version of the Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire for Middle-Aged and Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Memory concerns are common among older adults. The Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire (MMQ) is a well-validated participant-reported measure consisting of 57 items across three subscales assessing satisfaction with memory, self-perceived memory ability, and memory strategy use, respectively. Because short scales are often desired to accommodate clinical time constraints and reduce respondent burden, we created and evaluated 9-item versions of each subscale (MMQ-9). METHODS: In Study 1, we used an optimization strategy to identify subsets of items that maximized subscale reliability in a sample of 560 adults ages 50-90. In Study 2, we examined psychometric properties of the MMQ-9 in an independent sample of 638 adults ages 51-95. RESULTS: Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity of each subscale met published criteria for good measurement properties. Confirmatory factor analysis validated the original factor structure. A hierarchical series of invariance models showed excellent fit, confirming robust measurement invariance across age, gender, and education. CONCLUSIONS: The shortened MMQ-9 is a reliable, valid, and invariant measure of metamemory in middle-aged and older adults. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The MMQ-9 is a reasonable instrument of choice when brief yet psychometrically strong measures of participant-reported memory are required for clinical assessment of patients with memory concerns.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".