4.3 Article

Metamemory and tested cognitive functioning in multiple sclerosis

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGIST
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 357-368

Publisher

SWETS ZEITLINGER PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1076/clin.15.3.357.10278

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Metamemory, or one's knowledge and self-report of memory ability, has been researched extensively; however, few studies have examined it in multiple sclerosis (MS). Because impairment in cognitive domains besides memory may affect memory functioning, patients may self-report problems with memory that are indicative of impairment in cognitive domains besides memory. One goal of the current study was to test this hypothesis in MS. A group of 55 MS patients were administered a variety of cognitive tasks and a self-report metamemory measure; patients' significant others were also given a metamemory measure requiring them to rate patients' memory abilities. Results indicated that patients' metamemory reports were significantly (p<.05) correlated with verbal recall, attentional, and executive tasks. Significant other ratings of patients' metamemory were correlated with verbal recall and attentional measures. Stepwise regression analyses including all relevant cognitive and demographic variables indicated that only education and Symbol Digit accounted for significant independent variance in patients' current memory reports. Our results suggest: (1) subjective complaints of memory difficulties by MS patients reflect difficulty in cognitive domains besides memory, (2) MS patient self-reports of memory difficulty are at least as accurate as significant other reports, and (3) patients with more education are more accurate in their metamemory ratings. These findings have implications not only for a better understanding of metamemory in MS, but also for more effective treatment and rehabilitation of MS patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available