The validity and reliability of the Test of Memory Strategies among Italian healthy adults.
Executive functions
Italian healthy adults
Memory strategies
Neuropsychological assessment
Psychometric validation
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
02
02
2022
accepted:
25
08
2022
entrez:
5
10
2022
pubmed:
6
10
2022
medline:
6
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Previous literature has shown that executive functions (EF) are related to performance in memory (M) tasks. Nevertheless, there is a shortage of psychometric tests that examine these two constructs simultaneously. The Test of Memory Strategies (TMS; previously validated in Spain and Portugal) could be a useful verbal learning task that evaluates these two constructs at once. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the TMS in an Italian adult sample. One hundred twenty-one healthy volunteers (74 F, Mean age = 45.9 years old, SD = 20.4) who underwent a neuropsychological examination participated in this study. We conducted a Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the structural validity of the TMS. We conducted a latent variable analysis to examine convergent and discriminant validity of the TMS sub-scale scores reflecting executive functions and memory. We also examined the TMS reliability in terms of internal consistency through the McDonald's omega. The CFA confirmed the expectation that the TMS-1 and TMS-2 subtests reflect a factor and that the TMS-3, TMS-4, and TMS-5 subtests reflect a different factor. This result is in line with the prediction that TMS-1 and TMS-2 require the use of executive functions and memory simultaneously, and therefore we called this factor executive functions (EF); whereas the TMS-3, TMS-4, and TMS-5 subtests require less involvement of executive functions, thus reflecting a construct that we named memory (M). The TMS subtests for EF and M showed convergent validity with the test scores using a traditional neuropsychological battery, assessing memory and executive functions separately. Finally, the reliability of the subtests was good. These preliminary findings suggest that TMS is a valid and reliable scale to simultaneously assess M and EF while among Italian healthy adults.
Sections du résumé
Background
Previous literature has shown that executive functions (EF) are related to performance in memory (M) tasks. Nevertheless, there is a shortage of psychometric tests that examine these two constructs simultaneously. The Test of Memory Strategies (TMS; previously validated in Spain and Portugal) could be a useful verbal learning task that evaluates these two constructs at once. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the TMS in an Italian adult sample.
Method
One hundred twenty-one healthy volunteers (74 F, Mean age = 45.9 years old, SD = 20.4) who underwent a neuropsychological examination participated in this study. We conducted a Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the structural validity of the TMS. We conducted a latent variable analysis to examine convergent and discriminant validity of the TMS sub-scale scores reflecting executive functions and memory. We also examined the TMS reliability in terms of internal consistency through the McDonald's omega.
Results
The CFA confirmed the expectation that the TMS-1 and TMS-2 subtests reflect a factor and that the TMS-3, TMS-4, and TMS-5 subtests reflect a different factor. This result is in line with the prediction that TMS-1 and TMS-2 require the use of executive functions and memory simultaneously, and therefore we called this factor executive functions (EF); whereas the TMS-3, TMS-4, and TMS-5 subtests require less involvement of executive functions, thus reflecting a construct that we named memory (M). The TMS subtests for EF and M showed convergent validity with the test scores using a traditional neuropsychological battery, assessing memory and executive functions separately. Finally, the reliability of the subtests was good.
Conclusions
These preliminary findings suggest that TMS is a valid and reliable scale to simultaneously assess M and EF while among Italian healthy adults.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36196404
doi: 10.7717/peerj.14059
pii: 14059
pmc: PMC9527021
doi:
Substances chimiques
polyurethane-polypropylene composite
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e14059Informations de copyright
© 2022 Vaccaro et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that Prof. Marco Tullio Liuzza is an Academic Editor for PeerJ.
Références
Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2015 Mar;30(2):153-64
pubmed: 24963080
Clin Neuropsychol. 2018 Jan-Dec;32(sup1):133-151
pubmed: 29954246
Psychol Bull. 1990 Mar;107(2):238-46
pubmed: 2320703
Neurol Sci. 2014 Jan;35(1):79-82
pubmed: 24101117
Neurol Sci. 2008 Sep;29(4):209-17
pubmed: 18810594
Can J Psychiatry. 2008 Jun;53(6):354-60
pubmed: 18616855
J Affect Disord. 2012 Dec 1;141(1):11-21
pubmed: 22310036
Front Psychol. 2016 Jun 07;7:834
pubmed: 27375521
Neuron. 2003 Jan 23;37(2):361-7
pubmed: 12546829
Psychol Aging. 2018 Dec;33(8):1105-1114
pubmed: 30507212
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 05;(3):CD010783
pubmed: 25740785
J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98
pubmed: 1202204
Front Neurol. 2019 Dec 20;10:1303
pubmed: 31920926
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2006 Aug;21(5):413-20
pubmed: 16843636
Rev Neurol (Paris). 2015 Sep;171(8-9):624-45
pubmed: 25983192
Neurol Sci. 2000 Oct;21(5):279-91
pubmed: 11286040
Neurol Sci. 2014 Dec;35(12):1895-902
pubmed: 24998015
Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2014;122:1-29
pubmed: 24484696
Oncotarget. 2016 Oct 4;7(40):64711-64725
pubmed: 27589839
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 14;11:CD006073
pubmed: 27841442
J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Dec;46(12):1417-32
pubmed: 8263569
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2020 Apr;32(4):699-702
pubmed: 31230268
Front Psychol. 2016 May 26;7:769
pubmed: 27303333
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2016 Jun;40(6):1321-7
pubmed: 27087276
Psychol Methods. 2018 Sep;23(3):412-433
pubmed: 28557467
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;53(12):1277-84
pubmed: 22978357
Neurol Sci. 2014 May;35(5):663-8
pubmed: 24218156
J Sleep Res. 2008 Sep;17(3):271-80
pubmed: 18484964
Ann Neurol. 1994 Jul;36(1):55-61
pubmed: 8024262
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2018 Feb;40(1):30-44
pubmed: 28398162
Clin Neuropsychol. 2006 Jun;20(2):230-42
pubmed: 16690544
Epilepsy Behav. 2018 Aug;85:222-226
pubmed: 30032811
Psychometrika. 2009 Mar;74(1):107-120
pubmed: 20037639
Neuroimage. 2007 Mar;35(1):194-206
pubmed: 17236790
Ital J Neurol Sci. 1987 Dec;8(6):539-48
pubmed: 3429213
J Neuropsychol. 2021 Sep;15(3):301-318
pubmed: 33231380
Front Psychol. 2017 Apr 12;8:557
pubmed: 28446889
Eur J Neurol. 1996 May;3(3):198-202
pubmed: 21284770
Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2011 Sep;18(5):497-515
pubmed: 21838621