Cited by 103Cognitive Functions and MemoryMemory Processes and InfluencesAging and Gerontology Research

Self-report measures of prospective memory are reliable but not valid.

Uttl, Bob, Kibreab, Mekale·2011·Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale

Abstract

Are self-report measures of prospective memory (ProM) reliable and valid? To examine this question, 240 undergraduate student volunteers completed several widely used self-report measures of ProM including the Prospective Memory Questionnaire (PMQ), the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ), the Comprehensive Assessment of Prospective Memory (CAPM) questionnaire, self-reports of retrospective memory (RetM), objective measures of ProM and RetM, and measures of involvement in activities and events, memory strategies and aids use, personality and verbal intelligence. The results showed that both convergent and divergent validity of ProM self-reports are poor, even though we assessed ProM using a newly developed, reliable continuous measure. Further analyses showed that a substantial proportion of variability in ProM self-report scores was due to verbal intelligence, personality (conscientiousness, neuroticism), activities and event involvement (busyness), and use of memory strategies and aids. ProM self-reports have adequate reliability, but poor validity and should not be interpreted as reflecting ProM ability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0022843

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A study by Uttl and Kibreab (2011) found that naturalistic PM was not predicted by a task with longer, distraction-filled retention intervals.

    “A study by Uttl and Kibreab (2011) found that naturalistic PM was not predicted by such a task”

    From Strategic offloading of delayed intentions into the external environment (2015) · cites this paper as Uttl and Kibreab (2011)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Uttl, B., & Kibreab, M.
Affiliations
  • Mount Royal University (CA)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
Venue
Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale
Published
2011-03
Volume
65
Issue
1
Pages
57-68
ISSN
  • 1196-1961 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-7290
OpenAlex
W1975645279
Cited by
103
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6
FWCI
4.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
Keywords
prospective memory, self-report measures, questionnaire validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, reliability statistics, retrospective memory, verbal intelligence, conscientiousness, neuroticism
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Neuropsychological Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self-Assessment, Reproducibility of Results, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review