SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire and Quality of Life: A Longitudinal Study in Parkinson's Disease.

Brain Sci · 2025-01-13

DOI: 10.3390/brainsci15010066PMID: 39851433

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Background/objectivesObjective memory decline is associated with poor quality of life (QOL) in Parkinson's disease (PD, but it is unclear what role perception of memory (metamemory) plays. The Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire (MMQ) measures metamemory and is proposed to have a three-factor structure, but the factor structure of the MMQ in PD has not been explored. The current study examined (i) the factor structure of the MMQ in PD and (ii) the relationship between the metamemory and QOL in PD.MethodsThis longitudinal, observational study involved 149 participants with PD (98 males, M age = 65.78 years, SD = 9.25). Participants completed the MMQ and the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (disease severity) at baseline, and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (QOL) two years later.ResultsConfirmatory factor analysis revealed both the three-factor and four-factor models were inadequate. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a four-factor solution. The contentment and ability subscales from the original factor structure remained, while the strategies subscale was divided into external strategies and internal strategies. Disease severity, ability, and internal strategies uniquely predicted QOL. Individuals who reported low subjective memory ability and high use of internal strategies reported worse QOL two years later.ConclusionsThese findings indicate that metamemory predicts QOL in PD and suggest that improved perceived memory ability and strategy use could offer avenues for improved QOL.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.