The short version of the Metacognitive Prospective Memory Inventory (MPMI-s): factor structure, reliability, validity, and reference data

Rummel, Jan; Danner, Daniel; Kuhlmann, Beatrice G.

doi:10.1186/s42409-019-0008-6

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Importantly, those who were more underconfident in their ability also showed a greater reminder bias, consistent with the metacognitive bias view. These results fall in line with previous findings that JOLs and strategy use correlate with PM task performance (Kuhlmann, 2019;Rummel et al, 2019;Schnitzspahn, Zeintl, et al, 2011;Susser & Mulligan, 2019), and suggest that people are aware in the benefit of offloading on performance and err on the side of caution, thus employing it more frequently than they actually need. One caveat to this interpretation was that this relation appeared to be task-specific, meaning that metacognitive bias on one task (e.g., 123 task) was not associated with a reminder bias on the other tasks (e.g., ABC and 321 tasks).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…In accordance with this, studies have shown that people's global judgments of learning (JOLs) generally correlate with their performance on PM tasks (Meeks et al, 2007;Schnitzspahn, Zeintl, et al, 2011;Susser & Mulligan, 2019), although people are often underconfident in their predictions (Kuhlmann, 2019). Moreover, Rummel et al (2019) found that self-reported internal and external PM strategies used in naturalistic settings were positively associated with reported PM ability.…”

Section: Metacognitionmentioning

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity Predict Benefits to Memory from Intention Offloading

Ball¹,

Peper²,

Alakbarova³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study examined whether offloading prospective memory (PM) demands onto the environment through the use of reminders eliminates PM differences typically seen between individuals that have poor or good working memory ability. Over two laboratory sessions scheduled one week apart, participants completed three versions of a PM offloading task with and without the use of reminders, along with multiple measures of working memory. Participants also generated a list of naturalistic intentions to fulfill between sessions and were given an intention to email the experimenter every day. They later indicated which intentions were completed with and without the use of reminders. Consistent with prior research, high working memory participants did better in both laboratory and naturalistic settings when having to rely on their own memory. Critically, however, working memory ability was no longer predictive of performance with the use of reminders. Participants with lower working memory also offloaded more often that high ability participants, but this was not optimally calibrated to actual PM performance. These findings suggest that offloading may be particularly beneficial for those with poor cognitive ability. The theoretical and applied ramifications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Metacognitionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity Predict Benefits to Memory from Intention Offloading

Ball¹,

Peper²,

Alakbarova³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Metacognitive Prospective Memory Battery The questionnaire included only the seven "internal" items from the measure from Rummel et al (2019), asking about strategies for fulfilling intentions not involving external aids (e.g., "In my mind, I make a list of things that I still have to complete. ").…”

Section: Schizotypy-magical Ideation Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychology faces a measurement crisis, and mind-wandering research is not immune. The present study explored the construct validity of probed mind-wandering reports (i.e., reports of task-unrelated thought [TUT]) with a combined experimental and individual-differences approach. We examined laboratory data from over 1000 undergraduates at two U.S. institutions, who responded to one of four different thought-probe types across two cognitive tasks. We asked a fundamental measurement question: Do different probe types yield different results, either in terms of average reports (average TUT rates, TUT-report confidence ratings), or in terms of TUT-report associations, such as TUT rate or confidence stability across tasks, or between TUT reports and other consciousness-related constructs (retrospective mind-wandering ratings, executive-control performance, and broad questionnaire trait assessments of distractibility–restlessness and positive-constructive daydreaming)? Our primary analyses compared probes that asked subjects to report on different dimensions of experience: TUT-content probes asked about what they’d been mind-wandering about, TUT-intentionality probes asked about why they were mind-wandering, and TUT-depth probes asked about the extent (on a rating scale) of their mind-wandering. Our secondary analyses compared thought-content probes that did versus didn’t offer an option to report performance-evaluative thoughts. Our findings provide some “good news”—that some mind-wandering findings are robust across probing methods—and some “bad news”—that some findings are not robust across methods and that some commonly used probing methods may not tell us what we think they do. Our results lead us to provisionally recommend content-report probes rather than intentionality- or depth-report probes for most mind-wandering research.

show abstract

“…Existing studies investigating perceived PM abilities measured with self-report questionnaires such as the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ) and the short version of the Metacognitive Prospective Memory Inventory (MPMI-s) have found no age-related differences (Crawford et al, 2003) or small age variations (Rummel et al, 2019). However, Scarampi and Gilbert (2021) administered the MPMI-s at the end of a delayed-intention task and found that older adults reported higher PM abilities than their younger counterparts.…”

Section: Metacognition Prospective Memory and Agingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metamemory for Prospective Memory Performance in Younger and Older Adults: Does the Reference Point Affect our Judgments?

Scarampi¹,

Kliegel²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated age differences in the ability to predict prospective memory (PM) performance. A sample of younger (N = 88) and older (N = 88) participants completed an event-based PM task embedded in an ongoing task. Metamemory was measured by asking participants to predict their performance before completing the PM task and complete some questionnaires on self-perceptions of everyday memory ability. We manipulated A) the reference point used to evaluate performance and B) the order of presentation of the instruments. One group of participants predicted their upcoming performance with a general confidence rating (performance condition) whereas a different group predicted their performance in comparison to other people of their age (peers condition). The metamemory questionnaires were completed either at the beginning of the experimental session or after the PM task, in a counterbalanced order. In terms of performance, we did not observe age differences in PM. In terms of metamemory, younger and older participants were similarly underconfident in the performance condition and overconfident in the peers condition. Moreover, older adults reported significantly better PM abilities than younger adults, and participants generally reported more memory failures when the metamemory questionnaires were administered after the PM task and in the performance condition. These findings show that both younger and older adults have limited metacognitive insights, and point to reactive effects of metamemory to metacognitive reference point and order of administration of the instruments.

show abstract

The short version of the Metacognitive Prospective Memory Inventory (MPMI-s): factor structure, reliability, validity, and reference data

Cited by 19 publications

References 39 publications

Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity Predict Benefits to Memory from Intention Offloading

Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity Predict Benefits to Memory from Intention Offloading

Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports

Metamemory for Prospective Memory Performance in Younger and Older Adults: Does the Reference Point Affect our Judgments?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About