Open Access Repository for Measurement Instruments

AkkordeonDetailedScaleViews

The short version of the Meta-cognitive Prospective Memory Inventory (MPMI-s)

  • Author: Rummel, J., Danner, D., & Kuhlmann, B.G.
  • In ZIS since: 2024
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.6102/zis339_exz
  • Abstract: Prospective memory, the ability to remember to execute an intended action at the appropriate moment in the future, is frequently assessed with standardized questionnaires. Prospective-memory abilit ... moreies strongly depend on the different strategies people use to remember their intentions. In this study, we introduce the short version of the Metacognitive Prospective Memory Inventory (MPMI-s) that allows for a quick assessment of individual differences in self-reported prospective-memory abilities as well as in the use of mnemonic strategies (e.g., intention rehearsal) and external memory aids (e.g., calendars). Based on data from two waves of the GESIS longitudinal panel, we provide evidence that this novel questionnaire offers reliable and valid measures of prospective-memory abilities as well as of internal and external strategy use. As the panel sample is representative of the German population, we are further able to provide reference data that allow evaluating individual PM ability and strategy-use scores obtained with the MPMI-s. less
  • Language Documentation: English
  • Language Items: German, English (source)
  • Number of Items: 22
  • Survey Mode: Mixed-Mode
  • Reliability: Mc Donald’s Omega: .76-.80; Cronbach’s Alpha: .70-.80, Retest: .64-.73
  • Validity: evidence for criterion validity, convergent and discriminant validity
  • Construct: Prospective-memory abilities
  • Catchwords: Prospective memory, Metamemory, Memory strategies, Questionnaire, Prospection
  • Item(s) used in Representative Survey: yes
  • URL Data archive: https://doi.org/10.4232/1.14189
  • Status of Development: validated, standardized
  • Original Publication: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42409-019-0008-6
    • Instruction

      German: “Wie häufig treffen die folgenden Aussagen auf Sie zu?“

       

      Items

      Table 1

      Items of the German and English version of the short version of the Meta-cognitive Prospective Memory Inventory (MPMI-s)

      No.

      German

      English

      Subscale

      1

      Ich vergesse Verträge, wie etwa ein Probe-Zeitungsabonnement, fristgerecht zu kündigen.

      I forget to cancel contracts on time, like trial subscriptions for newspapers.

      Prospective Memory Ability (PMA) Scale

      2

      Ich denke daran, Erledigungen zu machen, die in einem bestimmten Zeitfenster ausgeführt werden müssen, z.B. die Wäsche vor Ladenschluss aus der Reinigung zu holen.

      I remember to run errands that need to be completed within a specific timeframe, like picking up my laundry from the dry cleaner before it closes.

      Prospective Memory Ability (PMA) Scale

      3

      Wenn ich von jemandem etwas länger ausgeliehen habe, denke ich bei der nächsten Verabredung daran, es ihm zurück zu geben.

      If I’ve borrowed something from someone for a while, I remember to give it back to that person the next time we see each other.

      Prospective Memory Ability (PMA) Scale

      4

      Ich vergesse einen Freund erneut anzurufen, nachdem ich ihn beim ersten Versuch nicht erreicht habe.

      I forget to call a friend again after I could not reach him or her on the first try.

      Prospective Memory Ability (PMA) Scale

      5

      Ich bekomme Mahnungen, weil ich vergesse, offene Rechnungen zu begleichen.

      I receive overdue notifications because I forget to pay bills on time.

      Prospective Memory Ability (PMA) Scale

      6

      Es gelingt mir, von alleine an unerledigte Anrufe zu denken, z.B. wenn ich einen Bekannten anrufen möchte, der heute Geburtstag hat.

      I am able to remind myself of phone calls I need to make, such as calling a friend on his or her birthday.

      Prospective Memory Ability (PMA) Scale

      7

      Mir fallen Termine, die ich in den nächsten Tagen wahrnehmen muss, rechtzeitig ein, auch wenn ich sie mir nirgends notiert habe

      I remember my appointments which are coming up in a few days without writing them down.

      Prospective Memory Ability (PMA) Scale

      8

      Ich versäume es, anfallende Briefe oder Emails rechtzeitig abzuschicken, obwohl ich es mir notiert habe.

      I do not send e-mails or letters on time, even when I wrote myself a reminder to do so.

      Prospective Memory Ability (PMA) Scale

      9

      Ich versuche, mir unerledigte Dinge immer wieder bewusst in Erinnerung zu bringen, damit ich sie nicht vergesse, auch wenn ich gerade etwas ganz anderes mache.

      Even when I’m busy doing other things, I deliberately try to keep unfinished tasks in mind so that I do not forget them.

      Prospective Memory Strategy: internal (PMSi) Scale

      10

      Morgens gehe ich meinen Tagesablauf im Kopf durch, damit ich nicht vergesse, etwas zu erledigen

      In the morning, I go through the day‘s tasks in my head so that I do not forget to remember something.

      Prospective Memory Strategy: internal (PMSi) Scale

      11

      Wenn ich mehrere Dinge in einer bestimmten Reihenfolge erledigen muss (z.B. beim Backen), stelle ich mir den Ablauf bildlich vor.

      When I have to complete steps in a specific order, such as when I am baking, I visualize the sequence of steps before starting.

      Prospective Memory Strategy: internal (PMSi) Scale

      12

      Wenn ich mit etwas fertig bin, überprüfe ich noch einmal, ob ich alles erledigt habe (wie die Herdplatte auszuschalten nach dem Kochen).

      After completing a task, I check once again whether I took care of everything, like turning off the stove after cooking.

      Prospective Memory Strategy: internal (PMSi) Scale

      13

      Ich mache mir in Gedanken eine Liste mit Dingen, die ich noch zu erledigen habe.

      In my mind, I make a list of things that I still have to complete.

      Prospective Memory Strategy: internal (PMSi) Scale

      14

      Ich gehe, während ich mit anderen Dingen beschäftigt bin (z.B. Spülen oder Sport machen), gedanklich eine Liste von Dingen durch, die ich noch zu erledigen habe.

      I think of my to-do list while I am busy doing something else, like washing dishes or working out.

      Prospective Memory Strategy: internal (PMSi) Scale

      15

      Bevor ich einkaufen gehe, stelle ich mir bildlich vor, wo sich die Produkte, die ich brauche, im Regal befinden, damit ich sie beim Vorbeilaufen nicht vergesse einzupacken.

      Before I go shopping, I picture where the products I need are located in the store, so that I do not forget to pick them up when I walk through the aisles.

      Prospective Memory Strategy: internal (PMSi) Scale

      16

      Ich schreibe mir einen Merkzettel mit Dingen, die ich noch zu tun habe.

      I write myself a to-do list to remind me of things that I still need to accomplish.

      Prospective Memory Strategy: external (PMSe) Scale

      17

      Ich schreibe mir Einkaufszettel.

       

      I write shopping lists.

      Prospective Memory Strategy: external (PMSe) Scale

      18

      Wenn ich am nächsten Morgen etwas mitnehmen muss (wie einen Brief oder ein geliehenes Buch), packe ich es bereits am Abend vorher ein, um es morgens nicht zu vergessen.

      When I have to take something with me the next morning, like a letter or a library book, I put it in my bag the evening before so that I will not forget it the next day.

      Prospective Memory Strategy: external (PMSe) Scale

      19

      Ich führe einen Kalender mit all meinen Terminen.

      I keep a calendar with all of my appointments.

      Prospective Memory Strategy: external (PMSe) Scale

      20

      Ich klebe mir Notizzettel mit Auflistungen von Dingen, die ich noch erledigen muss, an eine offensichtliche Stelle.

      To help me remember to do things, I stick “Post-It “notes in obvious places.

      Prospective Memory Strategy: external (PMSe) Scale

      21

      Ich lege mir Dinge an markante Stellen, damit ich dadurch an anstehende Erledigungen erinnert werde (z.B. stelle ich den vollen Müllbeutel vor die Wohnungstür, um nicht zu vergessen, ihn zu entsorgen).

      I put things in prominent places so that I’m reminded of tasks I need to do (for example, putting a full trash bag in front of the door so I do not forget to take it out).

      Prospective Memory Strategy: external (PMSe) Scale

      22

      Ich versuche Dinge, die ich regelmäßig tun muss, immer zur selben Zeit zu tun (z.B. ein Medikament abends immer direkt vor dem Zähneputzen einzunehmen).

      For things that I need to do on a regular basis, I plan to do them at the same time each day (for example, always taking my medication in the evening before brushing my teeth).

      Prospective Memory Strategy: external (PMSe) Scale

       

      Response specifications

      For all items, the same 5-point Likert response scale is used with categories being labeled 1 = rarely, 2 = rather rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = rather often, and 5 = often  (German: 1 = sehr selten, 2 = eher selten, 3 = gelegentlich, 4 = eher oft, and 5 = sehr oft). 

       

      Scoring

      The scale scores are unweighted mean scores. If there is more than one unanswered item per scale, the scale score should not be computed. The scale scores can interpreted based on the reference data provided in the original article (Additional File 3).

      Half of the items referred to prospective remembering, the other half to prospective forgetting. So, for half of the items, higher scores indicate better PM abilities, for the other half, higher scores indicate worse PM abilities. The latter items should usually be reverse-coded so that higher PMA scores always reflect better PM abilities. The Items 1, 4, 5, and 8 should usually be reverse-coded so that higher PMA scores always reflect better PM abilities. 

       

      Application field

      A 22-item questionnaire is presented that allows to not only reliably assess self-perceived PM abilities but also use of strategies that may influence PM abilities in daily life. PM abilities are crucial for mastering our daily work and life activities (Dismukes, 2012) and PM deficits accompany several clinical disorders (Raskin, 2018). Therefore, the brief and reliable assessment of individual differences in PM is of interest for both psychology researchers and (clinical) practitioners. Furthermore, the assessment of PM strategies is important both for a better interpretation of reported PM abilities and for identifying means for PM improvements. The presented short version of the MPMI allows for a relatively quick and reliable assessment of internal and external PM-strategy use in addition to the assessment of self-reported PM abilities. A further advantage of our PM ability scale is that it allows to control for wording effects and particularly acquiescence bias (Weijters et al., 2013), because it features negatively and positively formulated items (i.e., items that refer to prospective remembering and items that refer to prospective forgetting).

    Prospective memory (PM) refers to the ability to remember an intention at the appropriate moment in the future (Cohen & Hicks, 2017). Typical everyday examples of PM tasks are remembering to take a cake out of the oven after 20 min, remembering to buy a birthday present for a significant other, or remembering to take prescription pills after breakfast. From these examples, it is obvious that PM failures can have negative personal consequences, from a burnt cake or missing present ruining a birthday party to severe health issues from forgetting to take one’s medicine. PM not only plays an important role in our daily lives but also in work environments (Dismukes, 2012) and for neurological and clinical disorders (cf. Raskin, 2018). PM deficits are associated with several disabling clinical disorders, such as (mild) cognitive impairments, schizophrenia, and Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease (Costa, Carlesimo, & Caltagirone, 2012; Farina, Young, Tabet, & Rusted, 2013; Zhou et al., 2017). Therefore, brief screening tools for PM impairments are of crucial importance.

    The cognitive underpinnings of PM have been studied extensively within specifically devised laboratory tasks (see Cohen & Hicks, 2017, for a recent overview). Additionally, standardized objective (performance-based) tests are available to assess individual differences in PM abilities (Raskin, 2009; Wilson et al., 2005). However, the use of these tasks in the diagnosis of clinically relevant PM deficits can be hampered by practical limitations such as rather extensive administration times. Critically, such tasks include artificial experimenter-imposed intentions and thus performance on these tasks may have little relation to performance on self-imposed everyday PM tasks. Indeed, there are striking differences between the performance in laboratory/experimenter-generated and naturalistic/self-imposed PM settings (Arnold & Bayen, 2019; Bailey, Henry, Rendell, Phillips, & Kliegel, 2010; Schnitzspahn et al., 2016). Thus, although some have questioned the validity of self-reported everyday PM abilities based on its non-correlation with laboratory PM performance (Uttl & Kibreab, 2011), self-reports of PM—given that they can be reliably measured—can provide crucial insights beyond artificial laboratory PM tasks. Indeed, there is good evidence for the clinical relevance of self-perceived memory abilities, which predict conversion to dementia in older adults without objectively detectable memory deficits (Mitchell, Beaumont, Ferguson, Yadegarfar, & Stubbs, 2014).

    A few questionnaires to assess perceived everyday PM abilities have been developed previously, such as the Prospective Memory Questionnaire (PMQ; Hannon, Adams, Harrington, FriesDias, & Gipson, 1995), the Comprehensive Assessment of Prospective Memory (CAPM; Chau, Lee, Fleming, Roche, & Shum, 2007), or the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ; Crawford, Smith, Maylor, Della Sala, & Logie, 2003; Smith, Della Sala, Logie, & Maylor, 2000). However, the PMQ and the CAPM comprise 52 and 39 items, respectively. In many test situations, it is not feasible to use such extensive scales (Rammstedt & Beierlein, 2014; Stanton, Sinar, Balzer, & Smith, 2002). Indeed, the most frequently used PM questionnaire is the PRMQ, which comprises only eight PM ability items (complemented with eight retrospective-memory-ability items). This is also the only questionnaire for which normative data is available. However, the PRMQ, as well as the other PM questionnaires, exclusively rely on items that assess PM failures and are thus prone to acquiescence biases (Danner, Aichholzer, & Rammstedt, 2015; Danner & Rammstedt, 2016). Further, laboratory and everyday PM performances strongly depend on the use of mnemonic strategies, such as intention rehearsal, imagery, etc., as well as of external memory aids, such as calendars, to-do lists, etc. (e.g., Gilbert, 2015; Penningroth & Scott, 2013; Shelton et al., 2016). Notably, this is particularly true for groups with PM impairments when performing naturalistic tasks, such as older adults who need to remember to make phone calls (Maylor, 1990) or patients with brain injuries who need to keep track of their activities (McDonald et al., 2011). Thus, we deem it important to assess the frequency with which people use such strategies alongside PM abilities because they (a) allow for a better interpretation of perceived PM abilities (e.g., is PM ability normal given the strategies used or are people already compensating deficits via extensive strategy use?) and because they (b) may identify means for interventions (e.g., could more external aids be used to avoid PM failures?).

    To this end, we recently developed and tested a novel questionnaire specifically designed to assess perceived everyday PM abilities and PM-strategy use: the Metacognitive Prospective Memory Inventory (Rummel, Kuhlmann, & Danner: A questionnaire for the assessment of perceived prospective memory abilities and strategy use: The metacognitive prospective memory inventory (MPMI), in preparation).

    Item generation and selection

    The original 44-item version of the MPMI comprises three scales for the assessment of PM abilities and PM-strategy use in everyday life, with strategies being further differentiated into internal (i.e., cognitive) and external (i.e., memory-aid) strategies. For the present MPMI short version, we selected those eight items of each scale that (a) covered a wide range of everyday PM situations and strategies, (b) loaded highest on their respective scale and not on the other scales, and (c) were rated as most content valid by two PM experts. Also, half of the PM-ability-scale items are reverse-keyed such that item-wording effects—and, among them, acquiescence biases—can be controlled for (Billiet & McClendon, 2000; Weijters, Baumgartner, & Schillewaert, 2013). Items were selected from the MPMI long version without modification. The Prospective Memory Ability (PMA) scale measures how people experience their PM abilities (e.g., “I am able to remind myself of phone calls I need to make, such as calling a friend on his or her birthday.”). The items of this scale are formulated in a way so that it is obvious that they refer to memory abilities and not memory strategies (i.e., remind oneself rather than being reminded by another person or a device). Half of the items referred to prospective remembering, the other half to prospective forgetting. So, for half of the items, higher scores indicate better PM abilities, for the other half, higher scores indicate worse PM abilities. The latter items should usually be reverse-coded so that higher PMA scores always reflect better PM abilities. Because we intended to control for wording effects in the present study, however, we did not reverse-code these items for the reported analysis but only for the reference data. The PMSi scale assesses the frequency with which people use internal PM strategies to better remember their intentions (e.g., “In the morning, I go through the day’s tasks in my head so that I don’t forget to remember something.”). Higher PMSi scores always indicate more frequent strategy use. The PMSe scale measures how frequently people use external PM strategies such as memory aids or preparatory actions, to better remember their intentions (e.g., “I write myself a to-do list to remind me of things that I still need to accomplish”). Again, higher PMSe scores indicate more frequent strategy use.

     

    Samples

    The MPMI-s was included in two GESIS panel waves. Participants were part of the GESIS panel, a probability-based, longitudinal, mixed mode access panel for the academic community featuring a sample representative of the German adult population (GESIS, 2018). The MPMI-s was administered in waves bc with N = 4069 participants and bf with N = 3857 (i.e., approx. 95% of the original bc-wave participants). In wave bc (bf), the sample featured 52% (52%) females, a mean age of M = 47.11, SD = 14.32 (M = 47.44, SD = 14.21), and an age range from 19 to 71 years. A total of 46% (46%) of the participants had a high school degree eligible for attending a university (German Allgemeine-/ Fachhochschulreife), 53% (53%) a high school degree not eligible for university entrance (German Realschul-/ Hauptschulabschluss), and 1% (1%) did not hold a school degree. All participants answered the MPMI-s alongside several other questionnaires. Data collection was completed as part of three different data collection waves of the GESIS longitudinal panel (GESIS, 2018). That is, the MPMI-s was assessed in waves bc (June to August 2014) and bf (December 2014 to February 2015), the BFI-2S in wave ec (June to August 2017), and vacation planning in wave bc (June to August 2014).

     

    Item analyses

    Analyses were calculated with MPlus. Based on previous research (Rummel, Kuhlmann, & Danner: A questionnaire for the assessment of perceived prospective memory abilities and strategy use: The metacognitive prospective memory inventory (MPMI), in preparation), we hypothesized that items should form three different factors, that is, a PM ability (PMA), an internal PM strategy use (PMSi), and an external PM strategy use (PMSe) factor, that should be positively but moderately correlated with each other. A confirmatory factor analysis for a three-factor solution fitted the MPMI-s data from both data collection waves well, RMSEA ≤ 0.066, CFI ≥ 0.945, SRMR ≤ 0.033. In this model, we also controlled for wording effects (including acquiescence) by specifying a second factor with positive loadings for both reversed and non-reversed items (Billiet & McClendon, 2000; Maydeu-Olivares & Coffman, 2006). Item-factor loadings and separate fit-indices for each factor for both assessments are presented in Table 2. As expected, PMA correlated moderately with PMSi, r = 0.17, and PMSe, r = 0.21; the correlation between PMSi and PMSe was higher, r = 0.69. Taken together, the questionnaire factor structure from the original MPMI was replicated with the short version.

     

    Table 2

    Standardized factor loadings (CFA) of all items

    Item

    Std. factor loadings

    Wave bc

    Wave bf

    PMA 1: I forget to cancel contracts on time, like trial subscriptions for newspapers.

    − 0.48

    0.40

    − 0.54

    0.33

    PMA 2: I remember to run errands that need to be completed within a specific timeframe, like picking up my laundry from the dry cleaner before it closes.

    0.49

    0.30

    0.48

    0.29

    PMA 3: If I’ve borrowed something from someone for a while, I remember to give it back to that person the next time we see each other.

    0.60

    0.33

    0.56

    0.32

    PMA 4: I forget to call a friend again after I could not reach him or her on the first try.

    − 0.32

    0.36

    − 0.36

    0.32

    PMA 5: I receive overdue notifications because I forget to pay bills on time.

    − 0.42

    0.44

    − 0.45

    0.39

    PMA 6: I am able to remind myself of phone calls I need to make, such as calling a friend on his or her birthday.

    0.61

    0.31

    0.62

    0.30

    PMA 7: I remember my appointments which are coming up in a few days without writing them down.

    0.55

    0.33

    0.56

    0.31

    PMA 8: I do not send e-mails or letters on time, even when I wrote myself a reminder to do so.

    − 0.50

    0.41

    − 0.55

    0.37

    PMSi 1: Even when I’m busy doing other things, I deliberately try to keep unfinished tasks in mind so that I do not forget them.

    0.56

    0.59

    PMSi 2: In the morning, I go through the day‘s tasks in my head so that I do not forget to remember something.

    0.65

    0.66

    PMSi 3: When I have to complete steps in a specific order, such as when I am baking, I visualize the sequence of steps before starting.

    0.57

    0.58

    PMSi 4: After completing a task, I check once again whether I took care of everything, like turning off the stove after cooking.

    0.49

    0.47

    PMSi 5: In my mind, I make a list of things that I still have to complete.

    0.67

    0.70

    PMSi 6: I think of my to-do list while I am busy doing something else, like washing dishes or working out.

    0.67

    0.71

    PMSi 7: Before I go shopping, I picture where the products I need are located in the store, so that I do not forget to pick them up when I walk through the aisles.

    0.51

    0.50

    PMSe 1: I write myself a to-do list to remind me of things that I still need to accomplish.

    0.75

    0.78

    PMSe 2: I write shopping lists.

    0.58

    0.64

    PMSe 3: When I have to take something with me the next morning, like a letter or a library book, I put it in my bag the evening before so that I will not forget it the next day.

    0.48

    0.49

    PMSe 4: I keep a calendar with all of my appointments.

    0.51

    0.53

    PMSe 5: To help me remember to do things, I stick “Post-It “notes in obvious places.

    0.61

    0.60

    PMSe 6: I put things in prominent places so that I’m reminded of tasks I need to do (for example, putting a full trash bag in front of the door so I do not forget to take it out).

    0.55

    0.54

    PMSe 7: For things that I need to do on a regular basis, I plan to do them at the same time each day (for example, always taking my medication in the evening before brushing my teeth).

    0.40

    0.38

    Note. PMA prospective memory abilities, PMSi prospective memory strategies: internal, PMSe prospective memory strategies: external; wave names indicate the respective GESIS panel waves; the following fit indices refer to wave bc (bf): RMSEAPMA = 0.063 (0.066), CFIPMA = 0.949 (0.945), SRMRPMA = 0.033 (0.033), RMSEAPMSi = 0.078 (0.079), CFIPMSi = 0.944 (0.948), SRMRPMSi = 0.034 (0.035), RMSEAPMSe = 0.084 (0.078), CFIPMSe = 0.926 (0.941), SRMRPMSe = 0.039 (0.035); N = 4069 (3857); †item loadings on a latent wording-effect factor

    Objectivity

    The questionnaire provides a clear instruction, the scoring is standardized, and the GESIS panel reference data allows an objective interpretation. Thus, the objectivity (application, evaluation, interpretation) of the instrument can be rated as very good.

     

    Reliability

    To assess the MPMI-s’ reliability within both assessment waves, we calculated McDonald’s Omega and Cronbach’s Alpha for each scale. Results, which are displayed in Table 3, indicate good reliability for all scales and measurement points (ω ≥ 0.76, α ≥ 0.70). Retest correlations between the data obtained in the first (wave bc) and the second (wave bf) assessment further indicated that the manifest test scores were relatively stable across the 6-month assessment interval (r ≥ 0.64, see Table 2).

    Table 3

    Reliability estimates for all MPMI-s scales

     

     

    PMA

    PMSi

    PMSe

    McDonald’s Omega

    Wave bc

    0.78

    0.79

    0.76

    Wave bf

    0.78

    0.80

    0.78

    Cronbach’s Alpha

    Wave bc

    0.70

    0.78

    0.75

    Wave bf

    0.72

    0.80

    0.77

    Retest correlation

     

    0.64

    0.67

    0.73

    Note PMA prospective memory abilities, PMSi prospective memory strategies: internal, PMSe prospective memory strategies: external; N = 2996 – 4069

     

    Validity

    The BFI-2S domains were modeled as latent variables using exploratory structural equation models (Asparouhov & Muthen, 2009) including a random intercept as wording/acquiescence factor (Aichholzer, 2014; Danner et al., 2015). We assessed latent correlations between all three MPMI-s scales and the five personality domains of the BFI-2S. As evident from Table 4, due to the large sample size, almost all correlations between the MPMI-s scales and personality domains reached conventional levels of significance. Therefore, we decided to only interpret correlations of at least r = 0.10, that is, only correlations of at least small sizes according to Cohen’s conventions (Cohen, 1968). Replicating prior research, the highest correlation observed was the moderate correlation between PMA and conscientiousness (r = 0.41). Both strategy scales (PMSi and PMSe) were also weakly positively correlated with conscientiousness (r = 0.21 and r = 0.18), suggesting that conscientious people invest more cognitive as well as preparation effort to avoid forgetting of intentions. We further found small positive correlations with agreeableness for both PMA (r = 0.15) and PMSe (r = 0.10). Unexpectedly, we observed similarly weakly positive correlations between negative emotionality and the two strategy scales (r = 0.15 and r = 0.21) as well as between all three PM scales and open-mindedness (0.11 ≤ r ≤ 0.15). Finally, as expected, PMA was positively related to vacation planning (r = 0.15).

     

    Table 4

    Latent correlations between MPMI-s scales and external criteria

    Criterion

    PMA

    PMSi

    PMSe

    Extraversion

    0.04

    0.07*

    0.06*

    Agreeableness

    0.15***

    0.05*

    0.10***

    Conscientiousness

    0.41***

    0.21***

    0.18***

    Neg. Emotionality

    − 0.07***

    0.15***

    0.21***

    Open-Mindedness

    0.12***

    0.11***

    0.15***

    Vacation Planning

    0.15***

    0.08***

    0.07**

    Age

    0.10**

    0.04*

    0.07**

    Gender

    0.12***

    0.11***

    0.25***

    Education

    0.14***

    − 0.01

    0.14***

    Note PMA prospective memory abilities, PMSi prospective memory strategies: internal, PMSe prospective memory strategies: external; RMSEA = 0.038, CFI = 0.854, SRMR = 0.041; MPMI-s data from wave bf and BFI-2S data from wave ec were used; N = 4170; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

     

    Replicating prior research with the PRMQ, PM abilities correlated moderately with conscientiousness (Cuttler & Graf, 2007; Uttl & Kibreab, 2011) and, to a weaker extent, with agreeableness. Uttl and Kibreab (2011) reported a similar correlational pattern, but for objective PM measures, only. The positive correlation of our PM ability scale with agreeableness may be due to the fact that at least some of the everyday PM scenarios used in the newly developed items have an obvious social component to it (e.g., remembering to call a friend on their birthday, see Table 2). We further observed a weakly positive correlation between PM abilities and open-mindedness, which seems reasonable, as open-mindedness has been shown to relate to cognitive abilities (Ziegler, Danay, Heene, Asendorpf, & Bühner, 2012). The small but reliable correlation of PM abilities with the vacation-planning index further corroborates the scale’s construct and criterion validity in everyday life.

    To our knowledge, this is the first inventory to include both internal and external strategies of PM. The two strategy factors support the previously made theoretical distinction between internal and external PM strategies (Maylor, 1990; Penningroth & Scott, 2013). As expected, both strategy factors are positively related to reported PM abilities. Their negligible correlations with the vacation planning measure are not surprising given that the vacation planning measure assessed completed plans (i.e., having booked an accommodation) rather than the strategic process of planning. Interestingly, more conscientious people seem to not only perceive their PM abilities as better but also seem to engage more strategies to prevent prospective forgetting. Furthermore, it appears that people scoring higher on negative emotionality generally use more PM strategies (internal or external), maybe to buffer their fears of forgetting to execute important intentions. Again, we observed weakly positive correlations between the external strategy scale and agreeableness as well as between both strategy scales and open-mindedness. As suggested for the PM ability scale, the former might be due to the social aspects of many everyday intentions and the latter to the well-known link between open-mindedness and general cognitive abilities. In sum, we found good evidence for convergent validity of all three scales of the novel PM questionnaire (i.e., small to moderate correlations between conscientiousness and all PM scales). Somewhat unexpectedly, several (weak) correlations with other personality factors were also observed, however, suggesting that reported PM abilities and strategy use are not completely independent of people’s levels of open-mindedness, agreeableness, and emotionality. Intuitively, these relationships make sense within the nomological network of the Big-5 personality factors. However, as these relations were not observed in previous (less well powered) studies (Uttl & Kibreab, 2011), they require further replication.

     

    Descriptive statistics (scaling)

    Reference data separated by age and gender for all three scales are provided as Additional file 3 in the original publication. As the GESIS panel provides a sample that is representative of the German population, the reference data can be used as normative data for the interpretation of individual test scores. Because all PM scales showed some indication of age-group related variance and the PM strategy scales also varied with gender, we recommend using age specific reference data for the interpretation of all test scores and gender-specific reference data for the interpretation of PM strategy scores.

     

    Further quality criteria

    As evident from Table 4, there was some evidence for small age-related differences on the (manifest) PMA scale and for gender differences on all three scales. Tests of measurement invariance (e.g., Chen, 2007) were conducted for these demographic variables (see Table 5 for the results).

     

    Table 5

    Measurement invariance tests

    Level

    Wave bc

    Wave bf

    RMSEA

    CFI

    SRMR

    RMSEA

    CFI

    SRMR

    Age (≤ 30; 31–40; 41–50; 51–60; ≥ 61)

    PMA

    Configural

    0.068

    0.941

    0.040

    0.070

    0.938

    0.038

    Metric

    0.066

    0.928

    0.067

    0.066

    0.927

    0.065

    Scalar

    0.071

    0.902

    0.070

    0.069

    0.905

    0.069

    PMSi

    Configural

    0.088

    0.920

    0.042

    0.085

    0.931

    0.041

    Metric

    0.079

    0.914

    0.054

    0.076

    0.927

    0.052

    Scalar

    0.093

    0.848

    0.082

    0.090

    0.868

    0.076

    PMSe

    Configural

    0.079

    0.944

    0.038

    0.080

    0.947

    0.038

    Metric

    0.070

    0.941

    0.047

    0.070

    0.946

    0.046

    Scalar

    0.073

    0.919

    0.052

    0.074

    0.924

    0.053

    Gender (women vs. men)

    PMA

    Configural

    0.063

    0.949

    0.034

    0.067

    0.944

    0.034

    Metric

    0.057

    0.950

    0.035

    0.061

    0.943

    0.038

    Scalar

    0.056

    0.945

    0.035

    0.061

    0.936

    0.041

    PMSi

    Configural

    0.076

    0.948

    0.034

    0.076

    0.952

    0.034

    Metric

    0.069

    0.948

    0.035

    0.069

    0.952

    0.036

    Scalar

    0.081

    0.914

    0.048

    0.083

    0.918

    0.049

    PMSe

    Configural

    0.081

    0.925

    0.039

    0.078

    0.937

    0.037

    Metric

    0.076

    0.920

    0.044

    0.072

    0.934

    0.042

    Scalar

    0.081

    0.895

    0.058

    0.076

    0.914

    0.054

    Note. PMA prospective memory abilities, PMSi prospective memory strategies: internal, PMSe prospective memory strategies: external; MPMI-s data from waves bc and bf was used; N = 3523 – 4069

     

    For the PMA scale, measurement invariance tests comparing age groups (up to 30 years = 0; 31–40 years = 1; 41–50 years = 2; 51–60 years = 3; 61 years and older = 4) were ambiguous. That is, some tests favored scalar invariance but others only metric or configural invariance, suggesting that age groups should be compared only within structural equation models accounting for age-group differences in item loadings and item intercepts. The tests further suggest scalar invariance between women and men (males = 1; females = 2), implying that manifest PMA scores can be compared between women and men.

    For the PMSi and the PMSe scales, measurement invariance test results for age groups again did not consistently favor a certain level of invariance, suggesting that age groups should be compared within structural equation models accounting for age-group differences in item loadings and item intercepts, only. Test results further indicated metric invariance between women and men, suggesting that differences between women and men should be investigated with structural equation models accounting for gender differences in item intercepts.

    Although PM performance in objective performance-based PM laboratory tasks has been shown to decline with (old) age (Kliegel, Jager, & Phillips, 2008), neither perceived PM abilities nor PM strategy-use varied much with age in the present study. Although this finding may in part be caused by the rather low upper age limit of 71 in the present sample, it replicates previous results of no age-related differences in reported PM abilities obtained with the PRMQ (Crawford et al., 2003). For one, this can be explained by older adults rating their memory in comparison to their peers on such questionnaires (Rabbitt, Maylor, Mcinnes, Bent, & Moore, 1995). Further notable, it has been shown that age-related PM deficits also do not manifest themselves in naturalistic PM tasks that sometimes even produce age-related PM benefits (Schnitzspahn, Ihle, Henry, Rendell, & Kliegel, 2011). The absence of age-related differences in perceived PM abilities thus may be reflective of a factual absence of age-related declines in real-life PM tasks.

    In line with previous research using the PRMQ (Crawford et al., 2003; Uttl & Kibreab, 2011), we did not observe gender differences in perceived PM abilities. However, we observed substantial gender-related differences in internal and external strategy use, indicating that women tend to use certain strategies (e.g., mental intention rehearsal, writing to-do lists) more frequently than men. This is in line with previous research that also reported a more frequent use of memory aids in women than in men (Uttl & Kibreab, 2011). As the gender-related strategy-use differences seem to be reliable, it is advisable to take them into account when interpreting individual differences in this domain and chose reference data accordingly.

    Jan Rummel, Department of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Hauptstraße 47-51, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany, e-mail: jan.rummel@psychologie.uni-heidelberg.de

    The data are published as part of the GESIS Panel date (wave bc, bf): https://search.gesis.org/research_data/ZA5665

    GESIS, Köln. ZA5665 Datenfile Version 50.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.14189

    All analysis codes are provided as Additional file 2 in the original publication.