Content uploaded by Matthias Kliegel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matthias Kliegel
Content may be subject to copyright.
Fax +41 61 306 12 34
E-Mail karger@karger.ch
www.karger.com
Original Research Article
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2006;22:209–215
DOI: 10.1159/000094915
Prospective Memory Complaints Can
Be Predicted by Prospective Memory
Performance in Older Adults
Melanie Zeintl Matthias Kliegel Philippe Rast Daniel Zimprich
Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich , Switzerland
Introduction
Subjective memory complaints are common in later
life. Previous research has shown that, usually, older
adults hold more negative beliefs about their memory and
report a greater frequency of forgetting than younger
adults [1] . Consequently, memory complaints have be-
come an important issue in research aiming at identify-
ing older adults with a high risk of developing dementia
[2] .
The diagnostic relevance of subjective memory com-
plaints, however, is still under debate. While some re-
searchers have found older adults’ metamemory to be
quite accurate [3] , the general finding is that there are no
significant relations between self-reported memory and
memory performance [4] . Additionally, there is evidence
from various studies indicating that memory complaints
are more highly correlated with emotional variables such
as depressive symptoms than with actual memory per-
formance [5, 6] .
Although converging evidence shows that memory
self-reports and objective memory performance are un-
related, previous research might have one important lim-
itation. So far, studies investigating the significance of
subjective memory complaints have focused on self-re-
ported retrospective memory problems [7]
. However, this
might only reflect part of the phenomenon. A previous
Key Words
Prospective memory Prospective memory complaints
Objective prospective memory performance
Abstract
Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to explore if
prospective memory complaints reflect actual prospective
memory performance in older adults. Methods: Three hun-
dred and sixty-four older adults aged 65–80 years were in-
vestigated with regard to prospective memory complaints,
prospective memory test performance, self-reported de-
pressive symptoms, and self-reported memory capacity. Re-
sults: Separate analyses revealed that about half of the par-
ticipants showed a significant relation between subjective
and objective prospective memory. Conclusion: Older
adults appear to be heterogeneous with regard to the asso-
ciation between objective and subjective prospective mem-
ory. For older adults with relatively few depressive symp-
toms and memory concerns, prospective memory complaints
may serve as a valid criterion in the assessment of prospec-
tive memory ability.
Copyright © 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel
Accepted: March 6, 2006
Published online: August 7, 2006
Matthias Kliegel
Freiensteinstrasse 5
CH-8032 Zurich (Switzerland)
Tel. +41 44 634 5182, Fax +41 44 634 5189
E-Mail m.kliegel@psychologie.unizh.ch
© 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel
1420–8008/06/0223–0209$23.50/0
Accessible online at:
www.karger.com/dem
Downloaded by:
Université de Genève
192.33.214.33 - 8/13/2013 11:11:44 AM
Zeintl/Kliegel/Rast/Zimprich
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2006;22:209–215
210
study on memory complaints in patients attending the
Heidelberg Memory Clinic revealed that 40% of the pa-
tients spontaneously reported failures in remembering to
do things as their main symptoms [8] . This type of mem-
ory is labeled prospective memory and has just started to
become a focus of geriatric research [9] . Generally, the
term prospective memory refers to the realization of de-
layed intentions [10] , e.g. remembering to buy groceries
on the way home from work, and there is evidence that
the majority of everyday memory problems reported by
healthy adults (even across the lifespan) may be prospec-
tive memory failures [11] .
Despite their everyday prevalence, there is only lim-
ited research focusing specifically on prospective memo-
ry complaints [12] . Also, established memory question-
naires or diagnostic instruments on memory functioning
do not include self-reported prospective memory as a
separate construct [11, 13, 14] .
Apart from their everyday prevalence, prospective
memory failures are characterized by quite serious con-
sequences. First, intact prospective memory functioning
is very important for everyday functioning, e.g. remem-
bering to pay the telephone bill in time. Therefore, pro-
spective memory performance is of great relevance for
older adults’ maintenance of an independent way of liv-
ing [15] . Furthermore, prospective memory is of high so-
cial importance. Prospective memory failures may cause
considerable embarrassment, as they are often attributed
to a person’s lack of reliability. For example, a person who
forgets to call a good friend at her or his birthday may feel
quite embarrassed when this memory failure becomes
evident. By contrast, retrospective memory failures are
rather ascribed to the weakness of a person’s memory
ability [16] .
Taken together, subjective prospective memory ap-
pears to be an important but largely under-researched
side of memory complaints across the lifespan. This is
particularly relevant for older adults as they have to mas-
ter a number of prospective memory tasks every day (e.g.
remembering to take medication in time, remembering
to switch off the stove after cooking, etc.) in order to
maintain independence and autonomy in late life [17] .
The first aim of this study, therefore, was to investigate
if prospective memory complaints reflect objective pro-
spective memory performance. The rationale for this as-
sumption was that (due to the described prevalence and
serious consequences of prospective memory failures)
prospective memory complaints might be more closely
related to actual performance than usually revealed re-
garding retrospective memory. In order to take into ac-
count the general findings of high relations between non-
cognitive factors (e.g. emotional influences) and self-re-
ported retrospective memory, the roles of depressive
symptoms and general metamemory beliefs in prospec-
tive memory complaints were also considered.
Furthermore, there is initial evidence that the group
of older adults might not be homogenous with regard to
the predictor patterns of cognitive complaints [6] . In a
recent study, two subgroups were identified via mixture
regression analysis which significantly differed in the
amount of reported cognitive complaints and depressive
symptoms. Interestingly, cognitive performance was sig-
nificantly related to cognitive complaints only in the sub-
group showing fewer cognitive complaints and fewer de-
pressive symptoms, whereas in the other subgroup actual
performance had no effect on cognitive complaints [6] .
Thus, the second aim of this study was to explore if pro-
spective memory complaints might be differently related
to the examined predictors depending on the amount of
reported prospective memory complaints.
M e t h o d s
The present study is based on wave one data of the Zurich Lon-
gitudinal Study on Cognitive Aging (ZULU). The ZULU aims at
examining the development of learning and cognitive function-
ing in healthy community-dwelling young-old adults.
S a m p l e
Participants were mainly recruited through a random draw
from the local registry of the city of Zurich, Switzerland, and con-
stitute a largely representative sample. Only native speakers of
German with intact vision and hearing were included. Partici-
pants were screened for cognitive impairments and excluded in
case of potential dementia (MMSE ! 24). Data were collected
from 364 older adults between 65 and 80 years of age (age:
mean = 73.0 years; SD = 4.43), with 46% of the sample being fe-
male. The average subjective health rated on a 6-point Likert-type
scale (1 = ‘very poor’ to 6 = ‘excellent’) was between ‘rather good’
and ‘good’ (mean = 4.83; SD = 0.81). Participants were provided
with written and oral descriptions of the study outline and writ-
ten informed consent was obtained. The study was conducted in
agreement with the declaration of Helsinki [18] .
Assessment of Subjective Prospective Memory Complaints
To assess subjective prospective memory complaints, the Pro-
spective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ) [11]
was applied. The PRMQ is the first subjective memory measure
that systematically assesses prospective memory complaints. It
has been demonstrated to have good psychometric properties [11,
19, 20] .
All participants were given the Prospective Scale of the PRMQ,
which consists of eight items describing everyday situations of
prospective memory failures, e.g., ‘I often fail to mention or give
Downloaded by:
Université de Genève
192.33.214.33 - 8/13/2013 11:11:44 AM
Prospective Memory Complaints in
Old Age
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2006;22:209–215
211
something to a visitor that I was asked to pass on’. For each item,
participants were requested to indicate on a 5-point Likert-type
rating scale (1 = ‘agree strongly’ to 5 = ‘disagree strongly’) to what
extent the described memory failure applied to them. The ratings
from the 8 items were added to result in a score from 8 to 40, with
higher scores representing fewer prospective memory complaints.
The reliability of the Prospective Scale as measured by internal
consistency has been found to be acceptable (Cronbach alpha =
0.84) [19] .
Assessment of Depressive Symptoms and Metamemory Beliefs
In order to assess the degree of negative affect, the Geriatric
Depression Scale (GDS) [21] was applied. The GDS is a self-report
measure of depressive symptoms in the elderly and has been used
and tested extensively with older adults [22] . In the present study,
participants were given the Short Form of GDS, which contains
15 questions enquiring about different depressive symptoms, e.g.
‘Do you often feel helpless?’ [22] . Participants were supposed to
give a yes or no answer to each question. The answers to the 15
questions were summed up to form a score from 0 to 15, with
higher scores indicating more depressive symptoms. The Short
Form of GDS has shown an acceptable internal consistency (Cron-
bach alpha = 0.78) [23] .
Metamemory beliefs were assessed using the Capacity Scale of
the Metamemory in Adulthood (MIA) Questionnaire [24] . Self-
reported memory capacity was assessed by 11 items containing
statements about one’s own general memory functioning. Note
that all items of the Capacity Scale focus on retrospective memo-
ry capacity, e.g. ‘I am good at remembering names’ (reverse
scored). Participants were supposed to indicate on a 5-point Lik-
ert-type rating scale (1 = ‘agree strongly’ to 5 = ‘disagree strongly’)
to what extent they agreed with each memory statement. The rat-
ings from the 11 items were accumulated to give a memory capac-
ity score ranging from 11 to 55, with higher scores indicating bet-
ter self-reported memory capacity. The Capacity Scale of the MIA
has shown an acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach alpha =
0.86) [24] .
Assessment of Objective Prospective Memory Performance
A standard prospective memory laboratory task [25] was ap-
plied in order to measure prospective memory performance. The
Red Pencil task was initially described by Dobbs and Rule [26] .
Participants were supposed to remember to repeat the words ‘red
pencil’ whenever the experimenter mentioned these words [27] .
This occurred three times during the testing session. The instruc-
tion for the prospective memory task was given at the beginning
of the 2-hour testing session, in which a large cognitive test bat-
tery was applied. Participants were asked to immediately repeat
the instruction in order to ensure that they had understood the
task. In accordance with standard prospective memory proce-
dures [25] , the Red Pencil task was distributed over the whole test-
ing session. Prospective memory performance was scored as the
proportion of correct responses out of three possible reactions,
with higher scores indicating better performance. The Red Pencil
task has shown a high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha =
0.93) [27] .
Statistical Analyses
To assess whether prospective memory complaints were re-
lated to actual prospective memory test performance and/or to
noncognitive variables, correlations between prospective memo-
ry complaints and Red Pencil task scores, GDS scores, and mem-
ory capacity scores were calculated for the complete sample. Ad-
ditionally, the sample was split at the median (which was compa-
rable to the mean score) of Prospective Scale scores of the PRMQ
into prospective memory high complainers and prospective
memory low complainers [12] . Since the mean and variance scores
of the present sample were comparable to those found in a valida-
tion study of the PRMQ [19] , high complainers can be regarded
as reporting an above-average amount of prospective memory
complaints, and low complainers as reporting a below-average
amount. It was examined if the two subgroups might show a dif-
ferential association pattern with regard to the assessed variables.
In order to further explore the results of the correlational analy-
ses, separate multiple linear regression analyses were performed
for the entire sample and for the two subgroups, i.e. prospective
memory high complainers and low complainers, controlling for
age, education, and sex.
R e s u l t s
In table 1 , descriptive information about the total sam-
ple, prospective memory high complainers, and low com-
plainers is provided. The sample was split at the median
of the Prospective Scale scores (30.00) into prospective
memory high complainers and low complainers. Particu-
larly, the two subgroups were compared with regard to
prospective memory test performance, depressive symp-
toms, and self-rated memory capacity. Results show that
prospective memory high complainers, who reported
more prospective memory failures than low complainers,
did not significantly differ from the low complainers in
prospective memory test performance. However, prospec-
tive memory high complainers had significantly higher
GDS scores and significantly lower self-reported memory
capacity scores than low complainers. The reliabilities (as-
sessed by Cronbach alpha) were 0.72 for the Prospective
Scale of the PRMQ, 0.86 for the Red Pencil task, 0.74 for
the GDS, and 0.82 for the Capacity Scale of the MIA.
Correlations of Prospective Memory Complaints with
Prospective Memory Test Performance, Depressive
Symptoms, and Memory Capacity
Table 2 displays the results of correlational analyses for
the complete sample as well as for prospective memory
high complainers and low complainers separately. Results
for the complete sample showed that prospective memory
complaints were significantly related to GDS scores and
self-reported memory capacity, but not to objective pro-
spective memory test performance. Participants who re-
ported more prospective memory failures also tended to
report more depressive symptoms and a poorer memory
Downloaded by:
Université de Genève
192.33.214.33 - 8/13/2013 11:11:44 AM
Zeintl/Kliegel/Rast/Zimprich
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2006;22:209–215
212
capacity. However, separate analyses for prospective
memory high complainers and low complainers revealed
a different picture. While the association pattern of pro-
spective memory high complainers was similar to that
found for the complete sample, prospective memory low
complainers showed no statistically significant relation
between self-rated memory capacity and prospective
memory complaints and only a marginally significant re-
lation between GDS scores and prospective memory com-
plaints ( table 2 ). Instead, a significant relationship was
found for prospective memory test performance and pro-
spective memory complaints. Within the prospective
memory low complainers, those who reported fewer pro-
spective memory failures also tended to show better pro-
spective memory test performance.
Multiple Linear Regression Analyses with Prospective
Memory Complaints as the Criterion
Multiple linear regression analyses predicting pro-
spective memory complaints (with depressive symptoms,
self-rated memory capacity, and prospective memory test
performance as predictors as well as age, education, and
sex controlled for) showed that, when entered simultane-
ously, depressive symptoms and self-rated memory ca-
pacity were the only significant predictors of prospective
memory complaints for the complete sample [F(6, 357) =
17.80, p ! 0.001; adjusted R
2
= 0.22]. For the group of pro-
spective memory high complainers, the same results were
found as for the complete sample, with GDS scores and
self-rated memory capacity being the only significant
predictors [F(6, 190) = 5.23, p ! 0.001; adjusted R
2
= 0.12].
Total (n = 364) PM complainers
high (n = 197) low (n = 167)
Age
a
0.01 0.04 0.06
Education in years
a
–0.03 –0.00 –0.09
Sex (m = 0; f = 1)
b
–0.04 –0.04 –0.09
PM test performance
c
0.09 0.08
0.21**
GDS score
a
–0.38** –0.32** –0.15*
Memory capacity score
a
0.36** 0.22**
0.12
* p < 0.1, significant (two tailed); ** p < 0.01, significant (two tailed).
a
Pearson correlations.
b
Point-biserial correlation.
c
Spearman correlation.
Table 2. Correlations of prospective
memory complaints (Prospective Scale
score) with objective prospective memory
performance, depressive symptoms and
self-reported memory capacity
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the total sample, prospective memory high complainers, and low com-
plainers
Total (n = 364) PM complainers
high (n = 197) low (n = 167)
PM complaints score, mean 8 SD 29.7784.91 (17–40) 26.3083.65 33.8782.39
Age, mean 8 SD, years 73.0484.43 (65–80) 73.1584.30 72.9184.59
Education, mean 8 SD, years 12.8383.03 (2–23) 12.8683.16 12.7982.88
Sex, male/female 196/168 106/91 90/77
PM test performance
a
, mean 8 SD 0.4280.44 (0–1) 0.4180.43 0.4380.44
GDS score, mean 8 SD 1.6482.01 (0–14) 2.1482.31
b
1.0481.39
b
Memory capacity score, mean 8 SD 34.7987.15 (19–54) 32.6386.74
c
37.3386.78
c
PM = Prospective memory; SD = standard deviation. Ranges are displayed in parentheses.
a
Proportion correct.
b
Means significantly different at p < 0.01 (Mann-Whitney test).
c
Means significantly different at p < 0.01 (t test).
Downloaded by:
Université de Genève
192.33.214.33 - 8/13/2013 11:11:44 AM
Prospective Memory Complaints in
Old Age
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2006;22:209–215
213
However, consistent with the correlational analyses de-
scribed above, a different pattern emerged for prospective
memory low complainers. Here, besides an effect of age,
prospective memory test performance was the only sig-
nificant predictor of prospective memory complaints
[F(6, 160) = 3.71, p ! 0.01; adjusted R
2
= 0.09].
Discussion
The first aim of the present study was to explore if self-
reported prospective memory complaints reflect actual
prospective memory performance in older adults. To the
authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that investigates
the association between objective and subjective prospec-
tive memory in a large sample of older adults. Consider-
ing the correlation and regression analyses for the com-
plete sample, on first inspection findings do not seem to
indicate a strong relation between prospective memory
complaints and actual prospective memory performance.
The results seem to corroborate findings from retrospec-
tive memory research, where, as converging evidence
from a number of studies has shown, relations between
actual memory performance and self-referent memory
assessments are small
1
[4] . Thus, also personal judgments
about one’s own prospective memory performance are to
be interpreted with caution.
However, considering previous work [6, 12] , examin-
ing the sample as a whole might not be an accurate ap-
proach for the investigation of underlying processes of
subjective memory complaints. Therefore, the second
aim of this study was to examine if prospective memory
complaints might be differently related to the examined
predictors depending on the amount of prospective mem-
ory complaints being reported by participants.
Initial analyses showed that although participants
from both groups scored very similarly on the prospec-
tive memory task, high complainers reported significant-
ly more prospective memory failures than low complain-
ers. In fact, the results of the differential correlation and
regression analyses revealed that in the low complainer
group subjective prospective memory complaints were
significantly related solely to prospective memory task
performance. This result is inconsistent with the general
notion that subjective prospective memory judgments
are inaccurate in general, since in almost half of the par-
ticipants, prospective memory self-reports reflected ob-
jective prospective memory performance.
Furthermore, since subjective memory capacity judg-
ments were not related to prospective memory complaints
in the low complainer group, at least in those individuals
subjective metamemory beliefs regarding retro- and pro-
spective memory appear to be dissociable. The remaining
participants, i.e. the high complainer group, showed an
association pattern similar to the one found for the com-
plete sample. Prospective memory complaints were sig-
nificantly associated with depressive symptoms and self-
reported memory capacity, but not with prospective
memory test performance.
Overall, the findings of the present study are similar
to the results obtained by Kliegel and Zimprich [6] who
identified two subgroups of older adults differing in the
relation between cognitive performance and cognitive
complaints. They propose that if depression and neuroti-
cism are less pronounced, the influence of other variables
such as actual performance may emerge. This conclusion
might be transferred in part to the findings in the present
study. Prospective memory performance may only con-
stitute a predictor of prospective memory complaints
when depressive symptoms are scarce.
An open issue discussed in research on subjective ret-
rospective memory is the possibility that discrepancies
between memory self-ratings and memory performance
may arise because, generally, performance in laboratory-
based memory tasks is compared with self-ratings on
memory questionnaires that enquire about daily, memo-
ry-relevant situations. Thus, due to insufficient ecologi-
cal validity, performance in formal memory tasks might
not be representative of memory experiences in everyday
situations, which guide memory self-ratings in memory
questionnaires [29] . These concerns may also apply to re-
search on prospective memory complaints. Taking into
consideration that the questionnaire items of the PRMQ
enquire about everyday prospective memory failures, it
may be arguable if laboratory-based measures like the
Red Pencil task are representative of the everyday pro-
spective memory performance assessed by the memory
questionnaire. This problem may lead to an attenuation
of the effects found. Therefore, additional studies using
more naturalistic prospective memory tasks might be
helpful in order to further clarify this issue.
1
Our own results on the association pattern between self-reported ret-
rospective memory (MIA Capacity Scale), depressive symptoms, and ob-
jective memory performance (Word List Recall [28] ) correspond with the
well-confirmed finding that subjective and objective retrospective mem-
ory are only weakly related. For the complete sample as well as for the
subgroups, we found significant associations of self-reported retrospec-
tive memory capacity with depressive symptoms, but not with objective
retrospective memory performance (results are comparable when using
the median of the Prospective Scale or the median of the Capacity Scale as
criterion for forming the subgroups).
Downloaded by:
Université de Genève
192.33.214.33 - 8/13/2013 11:11:44 AM
Zeintl/Kliegel/Rast/Zimprich
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2006;22:209–215
214
Finally, it has to be noted that the presented results re-
fer to young-old adults (65–80 years of age) only. There is
evidence that, especially from the age of 80 years, there is
a pronounced decline in prospective memory perfor-
mance [30] . This might lead to a higher sensitivity to pro-
spective memory problems and may result in a better self-
appraisal of prospective memory in adults over the age of
80 years. Therefore, further research on old-old adults
( 1 80 years of age) is needed in order to enhance the un-
derstanding of the association patterns between objective
prospective memory performance and subjective pro-
spective memory complaints in old age.
In sum, the results of the present study indicate that
young-old adults seem to be heterogeneous with regard
to the predictor patterns of prospective memory com-
plaints. While for about half of the participants, actual
prospective memory performance was a significant pre-
dictor of prospective memory complaints, for the remain-
ing participants the relation between objective and sub-
jective prospective memory seems to be masked by de-
pressive symptoms. Thus, it can be concluded that for a
considerable number of young-old adults – characterized
by comparably lower levels of depressive symptoms and
memory complaints – self-reported prospective memory
complaints might serve as a valid additional criterion in
the assessment of prospective memory ability. This result
is of enormous clinical relevance as there is evidence that
prospective memory impairment in older adults may be
a very early indicator of dementia and that prospective
memory tasks seem to be more susceptible to the early
stages of dementia than retrospective memory tasks [31–
33] . The present study provides initial evidence that it
might be possible to use prospective memory complaints
as an indicator of actual prospective memory perfor-
mance in a large group of older adults. Further research
is needed to achieve a better understanding of the condi-
tions under which prospective memory ability can be de-
duced from self-reported prospective memory.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by funding from the Swiss Na-
tional Science Foundation.
References
1 Gilewski MJ, Zelinski EM, Schaie KW: The
memory functioning questionnaire for as-
sessment of memory complaints in adult-
hood and old age. Psychol Aging 1990;
5:
482–490.
2 Bischkopf J, Busse A, Angermeyer MC: Mild
cognitive impairment: a review of preva-
lence, incidence and outcome according to
current approaches. Acta Psychiatr Scand
2002;
106: 403–414.
3 Jonker C, Launer LJ, Hooijer C, Lindeboom
J: Memory complaints and memory impair-
ment in older individuals. J Am Geriatr Soc
1996;
44: 44–49.
4 Hertzog C, Hultsch DF: Metacognition in
adulthood and old age; in Craik FIM, Sal-
thouse TA (eds): Handbook of Aging and
Cognition, ed 2. Mahwah, Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates, 2000, pp 417–466.
5 Zimpr ich D, Ma rt in M, K liegel M : Subjective
cognitive complaints, memory performance,
and depressive affect in old age: a change-
oriented approach. Int J Aging Hum Dev
2003;
57: 339–366.
6 Kliegel M, Zimprich D: Predictors of cogni-
tive complaints in older adults: a mixture re-
gression approach. Eur J Ageing 2005;
2: 13–
23.
7 Derouesné C, Lacomblez L, Thibault S, Le-
Poncin M: Memor y complaints in young and
elderly subjects. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry
1999;
14: 291–301.
8 Kliegel M, Martin M: Prospective memory
research: why is it relevant? Int J Psychol
2003;
38: 193–194.
9 Kazui H, Matsuda A, Hirono N, Mori E, Mi-
yoshi N, Ogino A, Tokunaga H, Ikejiri Y,
Takeda M: Everyday memory impairment of
patients with mild cognitive impairment.
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2005;
19: 331–
337.
10 Ellis J: Prospective memory or the realiza-
tion of delayed intentions: a conceptual
framework of research; in Brandimonte M,
Einstein GO, McDaniel MA (eds): Prospec-
tive Memory: Theory and Applications.
Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
1996, pp 1–22.
11 Smith G, DellaSala S, Logie RH, Maylor EA:
Prospective and retrospective memory in
normal ageing and dementia: a question-
naire study. Memory 2000;
8: 311–321.
12 Mäntylä T: Assessing absentmindedness:
prospective memory complaint and impair-
ment in middle-aged adults. Mem Cognit
2003;
31: 15–25.
13 Pfluger M, Aebi C, Monsch AU: German-
language version of the CERAD neuropsy-
chological test battery. Z Klin Psychol Psy-
chother 2003;
32: 64–66.
14 Gilewski MJ, Zelinski EM: Questionnaire
assessment of memory complaints; in Poon
LW (ed): Handbook for Clinical Memory
Assessment of Older Adults. Washington,
American Psychological Association, 1986,
pp 93–107.
15 Maylor EA: Does prospective memory de-
cline with age?; in Brandimonte M, Einstein
GO, McDaniel MA (eds): Prospective Mem-
ory: Theory and Applications. Mahwah,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996, pp 173–
197.
16 Winograd E: Some observations on prospec-
tive remembering; in Gruneberg MM, Mor-
ris PE, Sykes RN (eds): Practical Aspects of
Memory: Current Research and Issues.
Chichester, Wiley, 1988, vol 1, pp 348–353.
17 Cockburn J, Smith PT: Anxiety and errors of
prospective memory among elderly people.
Br J Psychol 1994;
85: 273–282.
18 World Medical Organization: Declaration of
Helsinki. BMJ 1996;
313: 1448–1449.
19 Crawford JR, Smith G, Maylor EA, Della Sala
S, Logie RH: The prospective and retrospec-
tive memory questionnaire (PRMQ): Nor-
mative data and latent structure in a large
non-clinical sample. Memory 2003;
11: 261–
275.
Downloaded by:
Université de Genève
192.33.214.33 - 8/13/2013 11:11:44 AM
Prospective Memory Complaints in
Old Age
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2006;22:209–215
215
20 Crawford JR, Henry JD, Ward AL, Blake J:
The prospective and retrospective memory
questionnaire (PRMQ): latent structure,
normative data and discrepancy analysis for
proxy-ratings. Br J Clin Psychol, in press.
21 Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, Lum O,
Huang V, Adey M, Leirer VO: Development
and validation of a geriatric depression
screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psy-
chiatr Res 1983;
17: 37–49.
22 Sheikh JI, Yesavage JA: Geriatric depression
scale (GDS): recent evidence and develop-
ment of a shorter version. Clin Gerontol
1986;
5: 165–173.
23 Steiner A, Raube K, Stuck AE, Aronow HU,
Draper D, Rubenstein LZ, Beck JC: Measur-
ing psychosocial aspects of well-being in old-
er community residents: performance of
four short scales. Gerontologist 1996;
36: 54–
62.
24 Dixon RA, Hultsch DF, Hertzog C: The
metamemory in adulthood (MIA) question-
naire. Psychopharmacol Bull 1988;
24: 671–
688.
25 Wilson B, Cockburn J, Baddeley AD, Hiorns
R: The development and validation of a test
battery for detecting and monitoring every-
day memory problems. J Clin Exp Neuropsy-
chol 1989;
11: 855–870.
26 Dobbs AR, Rule BG: Prospective memory
and self-reports of memory abilities in older
adults. Can J Psychol 1987;
41: 209–222.
27 Salthouse TA, Berish DE, Siedlecki KL: Con-
struct validity and age sensitivity of prospec-
tive memory. Mem Cognit 2004;
32: 1133–
1148.
28 Helmstädter C, Lendt M, Lux S: Verbaler
Lern- und Merkfähigkeitstest. Göttingen,
Lelitz Test, 2001.
29 Hertzog C, Park DC, Morrell RW, Martin M:
Ask and ye shall receive: behavioural speci-
ficity in the accuracy of subjective memory
complaints. Appl Cogn Psychol 2000;
14:
257–275.
30 Kliegel M, Jäger T: Delayed-execute prospec-
tive memory performance: the effects of age
and working memory. Dev Psychol, in
press.
31 Huppert FA, Beardsall L: Prospective mem-
ory impairment as an early indicator of de-
mentia. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1993;
15:
805–821.
32 Huppert FA, Johnson T, Nickson J: High
prevalence of prospective memory impair-
ment in the elderly and in early-stage demen-
tia: findings from a population-based study.
Appl Cogn Psychol 2000;
14:S63–S81.
33 Maylor EA, Smith G, Della Sala S, Logie RH:
Prospective and retrospective memory in
normal aging and dementia: an experimen-
tal study. Mem Cognit 2002;
30: 871–884.
Downloaded by:
Université de Genève
192.33.214.33 - 8/13/2013 11:11:44 AM
