See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229006433

The Memory Failures of Everyday Questionnaire (MFE): Internal Consistency

and Reliability

Article  in  The Spanish Journal of Psychology · July 2012

DOI: 10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n2.38888 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

24 2,075

3 authors:

Montejo Pedro Mercedes Montenegro Peña

Ayuntamiento de Madrid Complutense University of Madrid
70 PUBLICATIONS   875 CITATIONS    66 PUBLICATIONS   847 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Manuel J. Sueiro
Complutense University of Madrid
12 PUBLICATIONS   301 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Entendiendo las quejas de memoria en el envejecimiento: una aproximación desde la genética, la neuropsicología y la conectividad anatomo-funcional View project

Dementia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Montejo Pedro on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Spanish Journal of Psychology Copyright 2012 by The Spanish Journal of Psychology
2012, Vol. 15, No. 2, 768-776 ISSN 1138-7416
http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n2.38888

The Memory Failures of Everyday Questionnaire (MFE):

Internal Consistency and Reliability

Pedro Montejo Carrasco1, Mercedes Montenegro Peña1, Manuel J. Sueiro2

1Ayuntamientode Madrid (Spain)
2Universidad Complutense (Spain)

The Memory Failures of Everyday Questionnaire (MFE) is one of the most widely-used instruments to
assess memory failures in daily life. The original scale has nine response options, making it difficult
to apply; we created a three-point scale (0-1-2) with response choices that make it easier to administer.
We examined the two versions’ equivalence in a sample of 193 participants between 19 and 64 years
of age. The test-retest reliability and internal consistency of the version we propose were also computed
in a sample of 113 people. Several indicators attest to the two forms’ equivalence: the correlation between
the items’ means (r = .94; p < .001) and the order of the items’ frequencies (r = .92; p < .001). However,
the correlation between global scores on the two forms was not very high (r = .67; p < .001). The
results indicate this new version has adequate reliability and internal consistency (rxx’ = .83; p < .001;
α = .83; p < .001) equivalent to those of the MFE 1-9. The MFE 0-2 provides a brief, simple evaluation,
so we recommend it for use in clinical practice as well as research.
Keywords: MFE, memory assessment, memory complaints, everyday memory failures, memory
questionnaires.

El Cuestionario de Fallos de Memoria de la Vida Cotidiana (MFE) es uno de los instrumentos más
utilizados para valorar los olvidos cotidianos. La escala original tiene nueve opciones de respuesta lo
que dificulta su aplicación; hemos elaborado una nueva escala de tres opciones de respuestas (0-1-2)
más sencilla de administrar. La equivalencia entre ambas versiones se estudió en una muestra de 193
participantes de 19 a 64 años. También se estimó la fiabilidad test-retest y consistencia interna de la
versión propuesta en otra muestra de 113 personas. Varios indicadores mostraron la equivalencia entre
ambas formas: la correlación entre las medias de los elementos (r = .94; p < .001) y el orden de las
frecuencias de los ítems (r = .92; p < .001). Sin embargo la correlación entre las puntuaciones globales

de la nueva versión los resultados fueron adecuados (rxx’ = .83; p < .001; α = .83; p < .001), y equivalentes
de las dos formas no fue muy elevada (r = .67; p < .001). Respecto a la fiabilidad y consistencia interna

a los del MFE 1-9. El MFE 0-2 ofrece un sistema de valorar breve y sencillo por lo que recomendamos
su uso en la práctica clínica y en la investigación.
Palabras clave: MFE, evaluación de memoria, quejas de memoria, olvidos cotidianos, cuestionarios de
memoria.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Pedro Montejo Carrasco. Centro de Prevención del Deterioro
Cognitivo, Instituto de Salud Pública. C/ Montesa 22, Edificio B, 28006, Madrid (Spain). Phone: +34-915886789. Fax: +34-915886793.
E-mail: montejop@madrid.es

768
 THE MFE'S INTERNAL CONSISTENCY AND RELIABILITY
Everyday memory failures form part of the study of
memory and memory disorders. Until now, research in this
field has focused primarily on the elderly. Memory failures
have been studied in terms of memory complaints, which
are a manifestation of one’s perception and experience of
memory failures. Recently, memory complaints have
become the subject of growing interest, mostly due to their
possible validity as a diagnostic criterion for cognitive
impairment (Riedel-Heller, Schork, Matschinger, &
Angermeyer, 2000). They are included among the criteria
for a diagnosis of Age-associated Memory Impairment
(Crook et al., 1986) as well as Mild Cognitive Impairment
(Petersen et al., 1999). Numerous studies have posed the
question of whether or not memory complaints predict
dementia, although this question has not been fully resolved
(Jonker, Geerlings, & Schmand, 2000).
On the other hand, everyday memory failures and their
manifestation in the form of memory complaints are
increasingly worrisome to adults, yet few studies have
been conducted in this population. Basset and Folstein
(1993) carried out a population study of individuals 18 to
92 years-old, and found that the differences among people
under 65 were not significant, but the differences were
indeed significant between participants under and over 65.
A study of subjects between the ages of 39 and 89
indicated there is no relationship between age and total
number of memory failures, but that the type of memory
failures may differ according to age. For example,
forgetting appointments or losing the thread of a
conversation are more common among elderly adults, while
other memory failures are common at all ages, like
forgetting where we leave things, forgetting telephone
numbers, or errors in remembering names (Bolla, Lindgren,
Bonaccorsy, & Bleecker, 1991).
There are several ways to study everyday memory
failures or their manifestation as memory complaints. They
are sometimes evaluated using one or more easy questions:
“Do you have memory problems?” either coded Yes or No,
or giving a variety of options (Riedel-Heller, Matschinger,
Schork, & Angermeyer, 1999). Other times, questionnaires
are used to assess the frequency of certain memory failures,
their severity, what strategies are used to resolve them, the
influence of the individual’s self-perception, etc.. These are
everyday memory failures questionnaires and metamemory
questionnaires. Among the first was the Inventory of
Everyday Memory Experiences by Herrmann and Neisser
(1978) (78 questions on a seven-point scale); building on
that was the Subjective Memory Questionnaire by Bennett-
Levy and Powell (1980) (with 36 items and a five-point
response scale). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire by
Broadbent, Cooper, Fitzgerald and Parker (1982) (25
questions on a five-point response scale) was adapted for
a Spanish population by García Martínez and Sánchez-
Cánovas (1994). Among the most widely-used is the
Metamemory in Adulthood Questionnaire by Dixon,
769
Hultsch, and Hertzog (1988). In Spain, we have the
Autoinforme de Memoria para Ancianos (Self-report
Memory Questionnaire for Elderly Persons) by Fernández
Ballesteros, Izal, Montorio, González, and Díaz (1992),
with 21 items on a three-point scale, and the Cuestionario
de Olvidos Cotidianos (Everyday Memory Failures
Questionnaire) by Benedet and Seisdedos (1996), which
consists of 68 closed questions about memory failures
grouped into ten sections (six-point scale).
Sunderland, Harris and Baddeley developed a memory
questionnaire in 1983 to study memory failures in everyday
life (Everyday Memory Questionnaire) made up of 35 items,
with five rating options from 0-4. Those authors went on to
modify it, developing a 28-item version (Memory Failures
of Everyday-MFE) to assess the severity of memory failures
using nine response options from 1 to 9 (Sunderland, Harris,
& Baddeley, 1984; Sunderland, Harris, & Gleave, 1984;
Sunderland, Watts, Baddeley, & Harris, 1986). That change
also meant moving from a less precise version (“sometimes”)
to a more specific one (“not in the last three months,” “once
in the last three months,” etc.), and it has been more widely
utilized than its predecessor. Other authors have employed
the 28-item version with five response options, studying its
factor structure and internal consistency, to produce a 13-
item version (Royle & Lincoln, 2008). The 28-item form
with either seven response options (Tinson & Lincoln, 1987)
or four (Efklides et al., 2002) has also been applied. A study
of children utilized two distinct versions, with different
numbers of both items and response options (Drysdale,
Shores, & Levick, 2004).
The MFE includes various categories of memory
failures: speaking or language, reading and writing, faces
and places, actions, and learning new things. It investigates
the frequency with which retrospective memory failures
occur, such as losing objects we use everyday, failures
related to automatic actions, putting objects away and
forgetting where they are, forgetting when something
occurred, etc.. It also addresses memory failures related to
prospective memory, such as tasks one needs to do,
following the correct direction, etc. Furthermore, it registers
memory failures related to the present: having difficulty
following a story on television, rambling or digressing
during conversations, forgetting what one just said, etc.
Some are very common and frequent in any type of
population, like having a word on the tip of one’s tongue,
while others imply more severity, such as one getting lost
in a hallway or building where they have been many times
before, or failing to recall important details about oneself.
It was adapted to the Spanish population by García Martínez
and Sánchez-Cánovas (1993).
Many authors have studied the MFE’s reliability,
especially from the perspective of internal consistency,
with satisfactory results. Cornish (2000) applied the version
with nine response options in a sample of 277 adults,
obtaining a Cronbach’s alpha of .89. Royle and Lincoln
770 MONTEJO, MONTENEGRO, AND SUEIRO
(2008) applied the version with five response options in
a sample of 98 healthy subjects, obtaining an alpha
coefficient of .91.
In Spain, the 28-item MFE has been used the most,
sometimes with nine response options and sometimes with
a three-point scoring system. The nine response options
are: 1- Not in the last three months, 2- Once in the last
three months, 3- More than once in the last three months
but less than once a month, 4- Once a month, 5- More than
once a month, but less than once a week, 6- Once a week,
7- More than once a week but less than once a day, 8- Once
a day, 9- More than once a day. This nine-point assessment
has various problems, among others intelligibility and
completion time, which may be excessive for some people,
elderly adults especially but also young people. Conversely,
the three-point evaluation is: 0: never-rarely, 1: sometimes-
not often and 2: often-frequently (Montejo, Montenegro,
Reinoso, de Andrés, & Claver, 2003). The latter scoring
system is the one being used the most by numerous
Spanish-language authors in a variety of fields (Delgado,
Fernández, & González-Marqués, 2009; Landa, 2007;
Quirosa & López, 2009; Garamendi, Delgado, & Amaya
2010; Requena, López, & Ortiz, 2009). Nevertheless, no
paper has been published, that we know of, comparing the
two modes of assessment.
In light of the above, our study’s objectives are: 1st: To
study the equivalence of the two response modes (MFE 1-
9 and MFE 0-2) by looking at the relationship between
total scores on the test, and on each item, as well as with
objective memory tests. 2nd: To determine the items’
frequency in the two modes of assessment. 3rd: To analyze
the test-retest reliability and internal consistency of this
new scoring system (0, 1, 2).
Method
Participants
The study of the relationship between the two response
forms and their internal consistency was carried out in a
sample of 193 healthy individuals actively employed at a
large company, who expressed interest in the study for
reasons having to do with memory. All the subjects’ tests
and assessments were administered by psychological and
psychiatric professionals. Subjects presenting with
neurological or psychiatric pathology that might have
compromised the results were not admitted. We did not
use tests to exclude the possibility of pathology, but rather
clinical observation by professionals. Participants’ mean
age was 39.08 years-old (SD = 10.39; minimum 17,
maximum 64); men: 35.2%; average years of education:
17.27 (SD = 4.15) (elementary school 4.7%, secondary
school 25.0%, university school 20.3%, university degree
50.0%). Since subjects had already filled out the MFE
twice to determine the two forms’ equivalence, we
preferred to employ a different sample taken from the
same population in our study of test-retest reliability.
= 113; mean age: 42.03 years (SD = 7.97; minimum
27, maximum 64); Men: 39.1%; mean years of education:
17.39 (SD = 4.24) (elementary school 6.8%, secondary
school 16.2%, university school 38.5%, university degree
38.5%).
Materials
Each patient’s assessment was performed using the
following tests:
The Memory Failures of Everyday Questionnaire
(MFE): This includes 28 items about situations and activities
that take place in everyday life. The MFE was first
administered to participants with the original response scale
(choosing from 1 to 9) (MFE 1-9), then the following day
using the version with a 3-option response scale (0 = never,
rarely; 1 = sometimes, not often; 2 = frequently, often)
(MFE 0-2).
Auditory Memory Test: This is a Word List created by
the authors comprised of 12 nouns from three different
semantic categories (trees, professions and furniture). It
was completed over the course of three learning trials and
one recall after 30 minutes’ delay.
Visual Memory Test: This consisted of applying the
Family Pictures sub-test of the Weschler Memory Scale III
(WMS-III)) (Wechsler, 2004). Four pictures were presented,
followed by an immediate recall task and a recall task after
a 30-minute delay. The examinee is asked who is present
in the scene and what place he or she occupies in the
picture.
These tests were administered collectively. The Word
List was read aloud and the Family Pictures were presented
as slides. The oral presentation was followed by participants’
written responses. In the test-retest study, the MFE 0-2 was
given twice with an interval of four days in-between.
Participation was voluntary with no type of incentive given.
Also, throughout the process, the rules governing the
protection of personal data were followed; completed forms
could only be identified by means of a key created by the
subject, and only known to him or her.
For statistical analysis, the SPSS program, version 15.0,
was used. The independent variables were outcomes on the
memory tests and sociodemographic data. The global MFE
score, computed as the sum of all item scores, was the
dependent variable. Pearson correlation coefficients were
used to examine the relationship between MFE scores and
quantitative variables (years of age, level of education, and
scores on memory tests). To examine the agreement between
the two versions of the test, we used Kendall’s rank
correlation coefficient τ-B, and Spearman’s rank correlation
coefficient for ranked variables following the order
determined by items’ higher or lower frequencies. To carry
 THE MFE'S INTERNAL CONSISTENCY AND RELIABILITY
out the tests of internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha
statistic was employed, as was the Spearman-Brown formula
using the split-half method. Test-retest reliability was
determined by the Pearson product-moment correlation.
Results
Correlation between the Two Forms and Internal
Consistency
The following descriptive statistics were calculated in
the sample of 193 participants who responded to both
versions of the MFE; for the MFE 1-9: range 30-129,
M = 66.26 (SD = 23.84), and the MFE 0-2: range 1-43,
M = 14.78 (SD = 7.23).
The correlation between the two global scores (MFE
1-9 and MFE 0-2) was: r = .67 p < .001. The correlation
between the means of each item generated using the two
scoring systems was r = .94 (p < .001). We studied the
MFE’s internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha statistic:
MFE 1-9 Cronbach’s alpha = .90; MFE 0-2: .86. We
measured reliability by means of the Spearman-Brown split-
half coefficient, yielding a value of .87 for the MFE 1-9,
and .85 for the MFE 0-2.
The correlations between total scores on the two forms
with other variables (age, level of education, and scores on
auditory and visual memory tests) are shown in Table 1. It
is apparent that the two forms behave similarly with respect
to the variables age, level of education and memory, except
when it comes to delayed recall scores on the visual
memory test.
Next, we examined whether or not significant differences
occurred between the items’ order of frequency in the two
scoring methods using the Kendall τ-B correlation
coefficient, which yielded a high correlation (τ-B = .79;
p < .001); the Spearman coefficient for ranked variables
was .92 (p < .001). Correlations between the same item on
the MFE 1-9 and the MFE 0-2 are displayed in Table 2.
Table 1
Correlations between the Two Scores and Other Variables
Variable
Age
Level of Education
Word List Presentation 1
Word List Presentation 2
Word List Presentation 3
Word List Delay
WMS III Family Pictures Immediate Recall
WMS III Family Pictures Delayed Recall
* p < .05 ** p < .01
771
This correlation was significant (p < .001) for all items. In
addition, we present the corrected homogeneity indices for
each of the two versions.
We can see that the items on the MFE 0-2 with the
lowest correlations with the total were the same ones that
implied more severe memory failure (19, 11 and 3).
Table 3 presents memory failures in order of score, from
higher to lower frequency, as well as the means and standard
deviations of each item.
In qualitatively assessing each memory failure detected
by the MFE, we observed that the three most frequent ones
(1, 5 and 13) are common in both scoring modes. Similarly,
7 of the 10 most frequent failures were the same in the two
versions. In addition, the 10 least frequent failures were
the same in the two versions. Last, four memory failures
occupied the same rank order in terms of frequency.
Test-retest Reliability
In the sample of 113 participants that responded to the
MFE 0-2 twice with a four-day lapse in-between, the
following descriptive statistics were found: on the first
presentation: range 1-37, Mean=14.09 (SD = 7.62); on the
second presentation: range 0-34, M = 12.05 (SD = 6.96).
When determining the test-retest reliability with the
modified response scale (0-2), we found a correlation of
.83 (p < .001) between the two presentations. For the first
presentation, the test’s internal consistency yielded a
Cronbach’s alpha of .83; for the second, it was .84.
We studied the order of items’ frequency in the two
scoring systems by means of the Kendall τ-B correlation
coefficient, and observed that τ-B = .90 (p < .001); the
Spearman coefficient for ranked variables was found to be
.98 (p < .001).
Regarding test-retest, from a qualitative point of view,
the 11 most frequent items were the same across the two
presentations. The three least frequent were the same, too.
Finally, 8 items occupied the same rank order across the
two presentations.
MFE 1-9 MFE 0-2
.03 .10
–.20** –.19**
–.03 .07
–.10 –.04
–.13 –.08
.04 .01
–.18* –.10
–.20** –.07
772 MONTEJO, MONTENEGRO, AND SUEIRO

Table 2
Correlations between Scores on Each Item and Corrected Homogeneity Indices for the Two Scoring Methods
Corrected Homogeneity Index

Item Correlation between forms (rxx) MFE 1-9 MFE 0-2

1 .63*** .50*** .38***

2 .34*** .29*** .35***
3 .63*** .29*** .19**
4 .42*** .49*** .45***
5 .44*** .48*** .41***
6 .50*** .46*** .48***
7 .55*** .63*** .36***
8 .54*** .62*** .56***
9 .58*** .48*** .46***
10 .46*** .32*** .26***
11 .47*** .13 .16*
12 .50*** .34*** .42***
13 .43*** .49*** .37***
14 .42*** .68*** .55***
15 .37*** .66*** .54***
16 .40*** .59*** .42***
17 .55*** .44*** .41***
18 .45*** .61*** .45***
19 .44*** .16* .07
20 .34*** .54*** .45***
21 .36*** .44*** .33***
22 .35*** .57*** .52***
23 .53*** .22** .23**
24 .59*** .54*** .42***
25 .39*** .34*** .30***
26 .50*** .51*** .31***
27 .35*** .37*** .44***
28 .59*** .54*** .48***

* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Discussion between measures of items’ difficulty support the equivalence

The present study of the MFE compares the functioning
of a three-point scale (0-2) with that of the nine-point scale
(from 1-9) established by the creators of the original test.
Equivalence between the two forms was tested using several
indices (correlation between total scores, correlation between
items’ order in terms of frequency, correlation between each
item’s respective means, correlation with other variables),
and we calculated the reliability and internal consistency
of the version with three response options.
According to our results, there was adequate
correspondence between the nine and three-point versions.
Items’ ranks in the two versions together with the correlation
of the two forms. Also, in carrying out our qualitative
assessment, we observed that order of frequency was similar
between the two scoring systems. The most and least frequent
items largely coincided across the two scoring modes. The
statistics that demonstrate this (the Kendall τ-B and Spearman
correlation) were also high and significant. Although the
correlation between total scores on the two versions was not
very high, we believe this may be due to the complexity
inherent in responding to the MFE 1-9 form. We also found
that the MFE’s internal consistency was high in both versions.
Furthermore, reliability was high in the test-retest
presentations of the MFE 0-2. In fact, the reliability we
obtained is higher than the one reported by the creators of
 THE MFE'S INTERNAL CONSISTENCY AND RELIABILITY 773

Table 3
Memory Failures in Order of Frequency and Their Respective Means and Standard Deviations
MFE 1-9a M SD MFE 0-2a M SD

5 Having to go back to check whether you have 13 Finding that a word is “on the tip of your
done something 4.34 2.41 tongue” 1.23 0.54
13 Finding that a word is “on the tip of your 5 Having to go back to check whether you have
tongue” 4.14 1.97 done something 1.12 0.67
1 Forgetting where you have put something 3.87 2.29 1 Forgetting where you have put something 1.02 0.65
7 Forgetting, leaving things (keys…) 3.56 2.22 26 Getting lost on a place where you have only
been once or twice before 0.85 0.62
8 Forgetting that you were told something 8 Forgetting that you were told something
yesterday 3.33 2.07 yesterday 0.83 0.63
14 Forgetting to do things 3.22 2.07 7 Forgetting, leaving things (keys…) 0.80 0.67
16 Forgetting what you have just said 2.94 1.95 18 Forgetting to tell somebody something 0.77 0.60
18 Forgetting to tell somebody something 2.90 1.86 6 Forgetting when it was that something happened 0.67 0.67
24 Forgetting where things are normally kept 2.56 1.97 20 Getting mixed up and confused what someone
has told you 0.66 0.59
6 Forgetting when it was that something happened 2.52 1.91 21 Telling someone a story or joke that you have
told them once already 0.65 0.60
20 Getting mixed up and confused what someone 16 Forgetting what you have just said 0.64 0.55
has told you 2.50 1.76
21 Telling someone a story or joke that you have 4 Forgetting a change in your daily routine 0.63 0.63
told them once already 2.41 1.55
26 Getting lost on a place where you have only 14 Forgetting to do things 0.61 0.62
been once or twice before 2.40 1.51
28 Repeating to someone what you have just 12 Having difficulty picking up a new skill 0.56 0.62
told them 2.36 1.75
22 Forgetting details of things you do regularly 2.26 1.67 24 Forgetting where things are normally kept 0.48 0.59
4 Forgetting a change in your daily routine 2.23 1.56 10 Letting yourself ramble on to speak about
irrelevant things 0.45 0.59
10 Letting yourself ramble on to speak about 28 Repeating to someone what you have just
irrelevant things 1.93 1.67 told them 0.43 0.57
12 Having difficulty picking up a new skill 1.92 1.35 22 Forgetting details of things you do regularly 0.43 0.59
15 Forgetting important details of what happened 17 Being unable to follow the thread of a story 0.33 0.57
to you the day before 1.87 1.47
17 Being unable to follow the thread of a story 1.84 1.50 15 Forgetting important details of what happened
to you the day before 0.31 0.51
23 Finding that the faces of famous people 9 Starting to read something without realizing you
look unfamiliar 1.74 1.49 have already read it before 0.30 0.51
9 Starting to read something without realizing 27 Doing some routine thing twice by mistake 0.26 0.49
you have already read it before 1.63 1.31
27 Doing some routine thing twice by mistake 1.54 1.47 2 Failing to recognise places 0.26 0.51
2 Failing to recognise places 1.47 1.00 3 Finding a television story difficult to follow 0.23 0.48
25 Getting lost on a place where you have often 23 Finding that the faces of famous people look
been before 1.40 1.05 unfamiliar 0.22 0.47
3 Finding a television story difficult to follow 1.36 1.07 25 Getting lost on a place where you have often
been before 0.15 0.39
11 Failing to recognise close relatives or friends 1.07 0.44 11 Failing to recognise close relatives or friends 0.12 0.39
19 Forgetting important details about yourself 19 Forgetting important details about yourself
(where you live,…) 1.05 0.37 (where you live,…) 0.02 0.13
a The number preceding each memory failure corresponds to numerical order on the MFE.
774 MONTEJO, MONTENEGRO, AND SUEIRO
the original test for their 1-9 version (r = .57). However,
that difference can be explained by the fact that those
authors let several months pass between the two
presentations (Sunderland et al., 1986). The MFE 0-2
exhibits equivalent indices of reliability and consistency as
the Spanish adaptation of the MFE 1-9 created by García
Martínez and Sánchez-Cánovas (1993). Those authors found
internal consistencies Crombach's alpha of .90 for young
people, .89 for elderly adults and .90 for their total sample.
Correlations between the subjective evaluations offered
by the MFE 1-9 and the MFE 0-2, and the objective memory
tests applied, were low. In the literature, there have been
disparate results in the study of the relationship between
objective tests and questionnaires that measure memory
complaints (García Martínez & Sánchez–Canovas, 1994; Pérez,
Pelegrina, Justicia, & Godoy, 1995). That is possibly because
factors other than objective memory achievement intervene
in the manifestation of everyday memory failures: factors
involving depression or anxiety, personality, general health,
etc. (Rohling, Green, Allen, & Iverson, 2002; Pearman, 2009;
Montejo, Montenegro, Fernández, & Maestú, 2011). In any
case, this study’s objective was to show that the results of the
reduced version of the scale would be equivalent to those of
the version with nine response options. Our results have
effectively demonstrated that correlations with scores on
objective memory tests were similar across the two response
formats. Only in the case of visual memory was a discrepancy
found; the correlation with the original response format was
significant, which was not the case for the abbreviated version,
though all the correlations were low (the highest percentage
of explained variance was 4%). Furthermore, correlations with
a variety of demographic variables (age, educational level)
were very close for the two scoring methods.
According to these data, we believe the 0-2, three-point
scoring system can be utilized given its similarity to the
one with options 1-9. Each type of scoring has its
peculiarity. The nine-point version has greater specificity
and theoretically more exactitude, but it is also more
complicated and takes longer to fill out. Selecting from
three possible responses, on the other hand, gives a more
global assessment, while being easy and simple for subjects
to complete. Both effectively highlight the memory failures
of daily life facing healthy subjects and patients with
memory-related pathology alike.
Regarding clinical interventions for users with cognitive
impairment or age-associated memory impairment
(pharmacological treatments as well as cognitive stimulation
and memory training), it is important to determine what
memory failures occur given that intervention should be
directed toward, among other objectives, resolving memory
lapses in daily life. Some memory training methods such as
UMAM that use the MFE to assess everyday memory failures
have observed a statistically significant decrease in scores
following treatment (Montejo, Montenegro, Reinoso, De
Andrés, & Claver, 2006).
Future studies should go into further depth on the
existing relationship between objective and subjective
memory assessments, as well as on the variables that
condition one’s response to everyday memory failures and
the relationship between the many ways of studying
memory failures (using questionnaires versus one or multiple
specific questions). Finally, normative data for the MFE
0-2 should be established to guide the interpretation of
scores on it.
References
Basset, S. S., & Folstein, M. F. (1993). Memory complaints,
memory performance and psychiatric diagnosis: A community
study. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and eurology, 6, 105–
111.
Benedet, M. J., & Seisdedos, N. (1996). Evaluación clínica de
las quejas de memoria en la vida cotidiana [Clinical evaluation
of memory complaints in everyday life]. Buenos Aires,
Argentina: Editorial Médica Panamericana.
Bennett-Levy, J., & Powell, G. E. (1980). The subjective memory
questionnaire (SMQ). An investigation into the self-reporting of
“real-life” memory skills. British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 19, 177–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8260.1980.tb00946.x
Bolla, K., Lindgren, K., Bonaccorsy, C., & Bleecker, M. L. (1991).
Memory complaints in older adults. Fact or fiction? Archives
of eurology, 48, 61–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archneur.
1991.00530130069022
Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. E., Fitzgerald, P., & Parker, K. R.
(1982). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire and its correlates.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 1–16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb01421.x
Cornish, I. M. (2000). Factor structure of the Everyday Memory
Questionnaire. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 427–438.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712600161916
Crook, T. H., Bartus, R. T., Ferris, S. H., Whitehouse, P., Cohen, G.
D., & Gershon, S. (1986). Age associated memory impairment:
Proposed diagnostic criteria measures of clinical change. Report
of a NIMH work group. Developmental europsychology, 2,
261–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87565648609540348
Dixon, R. A., Hultsch, D. F., & Hertzog C. (1988). The Metamemory
in Adulthood (MIA) Questionnaire. Psychopharmacology
Bulletin, 38, 671–688.
Drysdale, K., Shores, A., & Levick, W. (2004) Use of the Everyday
Memory Questionnaire with Children. Child europsychology,
10, 67–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09297040490911087
Delgado, M. L., Fernández, S., & González-Marqués, J. (2009).
Evaluación de los problemas de memoria cotidiana en
personas mayores. Adaptación española del Test de Memoria
Conductual Rivermead-III [Evaluation of everyday memory
problems in elderly adults. The Spanish adaptation of the
Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test-III]. (Final disertation)
Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
 THE MFE'S INTERNAL CONSISTENCY AND RELIABILITY
Efklides, A., Yiultsi, E., Kangellidou, T., Kounti, F., Dina, F., &
Tsolaki, M. (2002). Wechsler Memory Scale, Rivermead
Behavioural Memory Test, and Everyday Memory
Questionnaire in healthy adults and Alzheimer patients.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 63–77.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.18.1.63
Fernández Ballesteros, R., Izal, M., Montorio, I., González, J. L.,
& Díaz, P. (1992). Evaluación e intervención psicológica en
la vejez [Psychological assessment and intervention during
old age]. Barcelona, Spain: Martínez Roca.
Garamendi, F., Delgado, D. A., & Amaya, M. A. (2010) Programa
de entrenamiento cognitivo en adultos mayores [A cognitive
training program in elderly adults]. Revista Mexicana de
Medicina Física y Rehabilitación, 22, 26–31.
García Martínez, J., & Sánchez–Cánovas, J. (1993). Adaptación
del Cuestionario de Fallos de Memoria en la Vida
Cotidiana (MFE) [Adaptation of the Memory Failures
Everyday Questionnaire (MFE)]. Boletín de Psicología,
43, 89–105.
García Martínez, J., & Sánchez–Cánovas, J. (1994). Adaptación
del Cuestionario de Fallos Cognitivos de Broadbent, Cooper,
Fitzgerald, & Parkes (CFQ, Cognitive Failures Questionnaire)
[Adaptation of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire by
Broadbent, Cooper, Fitzgerald & Parkes (CFQ)]. Análisis y
Modificación de la conducta, 20, 727–749.
Herrman, D. J., & Neisser, U. (1978). An Inventory of Memory
Experiences. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. Skytes,
(Eds.), Practical Aspects of Memory. (pp. 35-51). London,
England: Academic press.
Jonker, C., Geerlings, M., & Schmand, B. (2000). Are memory
complaints predictive for dementia? A Review of clinical and
population-based studies. International Journal of Geriatric
Psychiatry, 15, 893–991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1099-
1166(200011)15:11<983::AID-GPS238>3.0.CO;2-5
Landa, P. J. (2007). Taller de Entrenamiento de Memoria [Memory
Training Workshop]. Vitoria, Spain: Servicios psicológicos
del Servicio Vasco de Salud.
Montejo, P., Montenegro, M., Reinoso, A. I., de Andrés, M. E.,
& Claver, M.D. (2003). Manual práctico de evaluación y
entrenamiento de memoria. Método UMAM. [The practical
manual for assessing and training memory. The UMAM
method]. (pp.41-43). Madrid, Spain: Díaz de Santos.
Montejo, P., Montenegro, M., Reinoso, A. I., de Andrés, M. E.,
& Claver, M. D. (2006). Programa de memoria. Método
UMAM [Memory program. The UMAM method]. (pp. 123-
138). Madrid, Spain: Díaz de Santos.
Montejo, P., Montenegro, M., Fernández, M. A., & Maestú, F.
(2011). Subjective memory complaints in the elderly:
Prevalence and influence of temporal orientation, depression
and quality of life in a population-based study in the city of
Madrid. Aging & Mental Health, 15, 85–96.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2010.501062
Pearman, A. (2009). Predictors of subjective memory in young
adults. Journal of Adult Development, 16, 101–107.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10804-009-9063-1
775
Pérez, M., Pelegrina, S., Justicia, F., & Godoy, J. F. (1995). Memoria
cotidiana y metamemoria en ancianos institucionalizados
[Everyday memory and metamemory in institutionalized elderly
adults]. Anales de Psicología, 11, 47–62.
Petersen, R. C., Smith, G. E., Waring, S. C., Ivnik, R. J., Tangalos,
E. G., & Kokmen, E. (1999). Mild cognitive impairment.
Clinical characterization and outcome. Archives of eurology,
56, 303–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archneur.56.3.303
Quirosa, T., & López, F. J. (2009, October). Aplicación de la terapia
de aceptación y compromiso a las quejas subjetivas de memoria
en personas mayores de 60 años [Applying acceptance and
commitment therapy to subjective memory complaints in people
over 60 years of age]. Paper presented at the IX National
Congress of Senior Organizations. Sevilla, Spain.
Requena, C., López, V., & Ortiz, T. (2009). Satisfacción con la
vida en relación con la funcionalidad de las personas mayores
activas [Life satisfaction as it relates to functioning in active
older adults]. Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría, 37(2), 61–67.
Riedel-Heller, S. G., Matschinger, H., Schork, A., & Angermeyer,
M. C. (1999). Do memory complaints indicate the presence
of cognitive impairment? Results of a field study. European
Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical euroscience, 249, 197–
204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s004060050087
Riedel-Heller, S. G., Schork, A., Matschinger, H., & Angermeyer,
M. C. (2000). Subjective memory loss-a sign of cognitive
impairment in the elderly? An overview of the status of
research. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 33, 9–
16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s003910050002
Rohling, M. L., Green, P., Allen L. M., & Iverson, G. L. (2002).
Depressive symptoms and neurocognitive test scores in patients
passing symptom validity test. Archives of clinical
neuropsychology, 17, 205–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/arclin/
17.3.205
Royle, J., & Lincoln, N. B. (2008). The Everyday Memory
Questionnaire – revised: Development of a 13-item Scale.
Disability and Rehabilitation, 30, 114–121.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638280701223876
Sunderland, A., Harris, J., & Baddeley, A. D. (1984). Assessing
everyday memory after severe head injury. In Harris, J. F. &
Morris, P. E. (Eds.), Everyday memory, actions, and absent-
mindedness. (pp. 193-212). London, England: Academic Press.
Sunderland, A., Harris, J. E., & Baddeley, A. (1983). Do laboratory
tests predict everyday memory? A neuropsychological study.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 22, 341–
357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90229-3
Sunderland, A., Harris, J. E., & Gleave, J. (1984). Memory failures
in everyday life following a severe head injury. Journal of
Clinical europsychology, 6, 127–142. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/01688638408401204
Sunderland, A., Watts, K., Baddeley, A. D., & Harris, J. E. (1986).
Subjective memory assessment and test performance in elderly
adults. Journal of Gerontology, 41,376–384.
Tinson, D. J., & Lincoln, N. B. (1987). Subjective memory
impairment after stroke. International Disability Studies, 9,
6–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02599148709166217
 776 MONTEJO, MONTENEGRO, AND SUEIRO

Wechsler, D. (2004). Escala de Memoria de Wechsler-III [The Received November 12, 2010
Wechsler-III Memory Scale]. Madrid, Spain: TEA Revision received June 10, 2011
Ediciones. Accepted July 13, 2011

View publication stats