Systematic review of pediatric memory questionnaires

ABSTRACT

Memory disturbances are common in children with neurological and developmental conditions. One way to measure memory disturbances and their functional implications is via a memory questionnaire. Several pediatric memory questionnaires have been published but no systematic review has been conducted to establish their psychometric properties. This review evaluated currently available pediatric memory questionnaires using the Evidence-Based Assessment (EBA) criteria developed by the American Psychological Association Task force. A systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, and PsychINFO was completed on June 2019. The selection process was guided by pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, followed by full manuscript reviews, and hand-search of reference lists of relevant papers. Selected questionnaires were evaluated by two independent raters against the EBA criteria and classified into “well established”, “approaching well-established”, and “promising” categories. The electronic searches yielded 9888 articles, 24 of which met the inclusion criteria. Hand searches identified additional 21 studies. The 45 identified studies reported on 24 versions of 10 memory questionnaires assessed working memory, everyday memory, prospective and retrospective memory, and self-awareness of memory functions. Based on EBA criteria, only one memory questionnaire (The Working Memory Rating Scale – 20 item version) was classified as “well-established”, 3 as “approaching well-established”, and 20 as “promising”. Most (n = 19) had good reliability but lacked concurrent validity; had low or no correlations with objective memory tests, and low predictive power. In conclusion, this review highlights an urgent need for the development and validation of pediatric memory questionnaires to increase the evidence base and improve questionnaires’ clinical utility.

KEYWORDS:

• Questionnaires
• memory
• psychometrics
• pediatrics
• assessment
• systematic review

View correction statement:

Correction

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).