Everyday Memory Questionnaire [13-items]: European Portuguese translation and psychometric characterization [abstract]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subjective Memory Complaints (SMCs) are very frequent in the community, but more markedly in older people (Ginó et al., 2010; Zapater-Fajarí et al., 2022). Several studies have indicated an association between SMCs and memory objectively measured, although the results maintain inconsistency. However, SMCs constitute an important symptom in clinical contexts which is usually associated with the search for clinical care. Scientific literature has reported several questionnaires to assess SMCs [e.g., Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ) - 13 items; Royle & Lincoln, 2008]. However, in Portugal there are very few instruments that measure SMCs. This study aimed to translate and present preliminary psychometric data of the EMQ (13-items) for application to the Portuguese population. This instrument has been reported in literature as one of the most used instruments to assess memory complaints. Additionally, this study aimed to explore factors that could predict SMCs (i.e., age, depression, anxiety). The sample was composed of 344 participants (241 female), with ages between 18 and 80 years (M = 36.4, SD = 15.9). Participants completed the following self-report questionnaires: Sociodemographic Questionnaire, EMQ 13-items, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Y2). The results suggested that the EMQ 13-items presents good psychometric properties, specifically internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92), and factorial validity (two-factor structure that explained 60.3% of the total variance), although the sample presents some limitations. In a sub-sample, some negative correlations were found between EMQ 13-items and MoCA subscales. The results also indicated that depression and age are predictors of the subjective memory complaints, a pattern of results found in studies with several instruments that assess memory complaints. Given that this instrument revealed good psychometric characteristics for a Portuguese sample, although this is a preliminary study, this constitutes a starting point for new studies (e.g., transcultural studies).
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".