scholarly journals Objective and subjective memory impairment in elderly adults: a revised version of the Everyday Memory Questionnaire

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Calabria ◽  
Rosa Manenti ◽  
Sandra Rosini ◽  
Orazio Zanetti ◽  
Carlo Miniussi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Memory Impairment ◽  
Elderly Adults ◽  
Subjective Memory ◽  
Everyday Memory ◽  
Subjective Memory Impairment ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
Everyday Memory Questionnaire ◽  
Memory Questionnaire

scholarly journals Group cognitive rehabilitation to reduce the psychological impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life: the CRAMMS RCT

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadina B Lincoln ◽  
Lucy E Bradshaw ◽  
Cris S Constantinescu ◽  
Florence Day ◽  
Avril ER Drummond ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Cognitive Rehabilitation ◽  
Rehabilitation Programme ◽  
Everyday Memory ◽  
Impact Scale ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
Everyday Memory Questionnaire ◽  
Memory Questionnaire

Background People with multiple sclerosis have problems with memory and attention. The effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation has not been established. Objectives The objectives were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a cognitive rehabilitation programme for people with multiple sclerosis. Design This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in which participants were randomised in a ratio of 6 : 5 to receive cognitive rehabilitation plus usual care or usual care alone. Participants were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Setting The trial was set in hospital neurology clinics and community services. Participants Participants were people with multiple sclerosis who had cognitive problems, were aged 18–69 years, could travel to attend group sessions and gave informed consent. Intervention The intervention was a group cognitive rehabilitation programme delivered weekly by an assistant psychologist to between four and six participants for 10 weeks. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale – Psychological subscale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included results from the Everyday Memory Questionnaire, the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version and a service use questionnaire from participants, and the Everyday Memory Questionnaire – relative version and the Modified Carer Strain Index from a relative or friend of the participant. Results Of the 449 participants randomised, 245 were allocated to cognitive rehabilitation (intervention group) and 204 were allocated to usual care (control group). Of these, 214 in the intervention group and 173 in the control group were included in the primary analysis. There was no clinically important difference in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale – Psychological subscale score between the two groups at the 12-month follow-up (adjusted difference in means –0.6, 95% confidence interval –1.5 to 0.3; p = 0.20). There were no important differences between the groups in relation to cognitive abilities, fatigue, employment, or carer strain at follow-up. However, there were differences, although small, between the groups in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale – Psychological subscale score at 6 months (adjusted difference in means –0.9, 95% confidence interval –1.7 to –0.1; p = 0.03) and in everyday memory on the Everyday Memory Questionnaire as reported by participants at 6 (adjusted difference in means –5.3, 95% confidence interval –8.7 to –1.9) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means –4.4, 95% confidence interval –7.8 to –0.9) and by relatives at 6 (adjusted difference in means –5.4, 95% confidence interval –9.1 to –1.7) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means –5.5, 95% confidence interval –9.6 to –1.5) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. There were also differences in mood on the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire at 6 (adjusted difference in means –3.4, 95% confidence interval –5.9 to –0.8) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means –3.4, 95% confidence interval –6.2 to –0.6) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. A qualitative analysis indicated perceived benefits of the intervention. There was no evidence of a difference in costs (adjusted difference in means –£574.93, 95% confidence interval –£1878.93 to £729.07) or quality-adjusted life-year gain (adjusted difference in means 0.00, 95% confidence interval –0.02 to 0.02). No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported. Limitations The trial included a sample of participants who had relatively severe cognitive problems in daily life. The trial was not powered to perform subgroup analyses. Participants could not be blinded to treatment allocation. Conclusions This cognitive rehabilitation programme had no long-term benefits on quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis. Future work Future research should evaluate the selection of those who may benefit from cognitive rehabilitation. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09697576. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 4. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Use of the Everyday Memory Questionnaire With Children

2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Drysdale ◽  
Arthur Shores ◽  
Wayne Levick
Keyword(s):  
Everyday Memory ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
Everyday Memory Questionnaire ◽  
Memory Questionnaire

Factor analysis of the everyday memory questionnaire in persons with traumatic brain injury

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelle M. Sander ◽  
Allison N. Clark ◽  
Laura M. van Veldhoven ◽  
Robin Hanks ◽  
Tessa Hart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Everyday Memory ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
Everyday Memory Questionnaire ◽  
Memory Questionnaire

Wechsler Memory Scale, Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test, and Everyday Memory Questionnaire in Healthy Adults and Alzheimer Patients

2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anastasia Efklides ◽  
Efterpi Yiultsi ◽  
Theopisti Kangellidou ◽  
Fotini Kounti ◽  
Fotini Dina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Memory ◽  
Semantic Memory ◽  
Memory Test ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Gender Effects ◽  
Everyday Memory ◽  
Wechsler Memory Scale ◽  
Everyday Memory Questionnaire ◽  
Behavioral Memory ◽  
Memory Questionnaire

Summary: The Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS) is a laboratory-based memory test that has been criticized for its lack of ecological validity and for not testing long-term memory. A more recent memory test, which aims at testing everyday memory, is the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test (RBMT); it tests prospective memory and other forms of memory not tapped by WMS. However, even this test does not capture all aspects of everyday memory problems often reported by adults. These problems are the object of the Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ). This study aimed at identifying the relationships between these three memory tests. The differential effect of Alzheimer's disease (AD) on the above relationships was also studied. The sample consisted of 233 healthy adults (20 to 75+ years of age) and 39 AD patients (50 to 75 years of age). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed the following latent factors: Verbal Memory, Visual Reconstruction, Orientation, Message (action embedded in spatial context), Visual Recognition, Spatial Memory, New Learning/Association Forming, Prospective/Episodic Memory, and Metamemory. These first-order factors were further explained by two second-order factors: Semantic Memory and Coordination of Semantic and Visuo-Spatial Memory. This basic structure was preserved in the sample of AD patients, although AD patients performed less well on the WMS and the RBMT. Some interesting findings regarding semantic memory, face recognition, and metamemory in AD patients are also reported. Age, education, but no gender effects on memory performance were also detected.

Everyday Memory Questionnaire

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Sunderland ◽  
John E. Harris ◽  
Alan D. Baddeley
Keyword(s):  
Everyday Memory ◽  
Everyday Memory Questionnaire ◽  
Memory Questionnaire
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document