Turkish Version of the Working Memory Questionnaire: Reliability and Validity

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to develop the Turkish version of the Working Memory Questionnaire (WMQ-TR) and to examine the reliability and validity of the adapted version. Methods: The translation of the questionnaire was undertaken according to the international guidelines. The participants received an online survey including WMQ-TR and the Turkish Version of the Cognitive Failure Questionnaire (CFQ-TR). At two weeks after the first administration of the survey, the participants were asked to complete WMQ-TR again to examine test-retest reliability. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient) and construct validity (hypothesis testing) analyses were used to evaluate validity. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine test-retest reliability. Results: The study was conducted with 303 healthy participants. The test-retest reliability of WMQ-TR was high (ICC=0.91, p<0.001), and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.90. A moderate positive correlation was found between WMQ-TR and CFQ-TR (r=0.61, p<0.001). Conclusion: WMQ-TR appears to have excellent test-retest reliability, acceptable construct validity, and good internal consistency.

Keywords

• Working Memory
• Reliability
• Validity
• WMQ

References

1. 1. Goldman-Rakic PS. Cellular basis of working memory. Neuron 1995;14(3),477-485.
2. 2. Chatham CH, Badre D. Multiple gates on working memory. Current opinion in behavioral sciences 2015;1,23-31.
3. 3. Baddeley A. Working memory. Science 1992;255(5044):556-9.
4. 4. Pläschke RN, Patil KR, Cieslik EC, et al. Age differences in predicting working memory performance from network-based functional connectivity. Cortex 2020;132,441-459.
5. 5. Fitri FI, Fithrie A, Rambe, AS. Association between working memory impairment and activities of daily living in post-stroke patients. Med Glas (Zenica) 2020;17(2),433-438.
6. 6. Vallat-Azouvi C, Pradat-Diehl P, Azouvi P. The Working Memory Questionnaire: A scale to assess everyday life problems related to deficits of working memory in brain injured patients. Neuropsychological rehabilitation 2012;22(4),634-649.
7. 7. Kirova AM, Bays RB, Lagalwar S. Working memory and executive function decline across normal aging, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer’s disease. BioMed research international 2015;2015.
8. 8. Goodman JB, Freeman EE, Chalmers KA. The relationship between early life stress and working memory in adulthood: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Memory 2019;27(6),868-880.

9. 9. Ferrera D, Gómez-Esquer F, Peláez I, et al. Effects of COMT Genotypes on Working Memory Performance in Fibromyalgia Patients. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2020;9(8),2479.
10. 10. Vaughan RS, Laborde S. Attention, working-memory control, working-memory capacity, and sport performance: The moderating role of athletic expertise. European journal of sport science 2021;21(2),240-249.
11. 11. Calamia M, Markon K, Tranel D. Scoring higher the second time around: meta-analyses of practice effects in neuropsychological assessment. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 2012;26(4),543-570.
12. 12. Kane MJ, Engle RW. The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic bulletin & review 2002;9(4),637-671.
13. 13. Guariglia P, Giaimo F, Palmiero M, Piccardi L. Normative data and validation of the Italian translation of the Working Memory Questionnaire (WMQ). Applied Neuropsychology: Adult 2020;27(4),376-389.
14. 14. Arjmandnia AA, Gholam Ali Lavasani, M, Hajian Z, Maleki S. Psychometric Properties of the Farsi Version of Adults Working Memory Questionnaire (WMQ). Journal of Applied Psychological Research 2017;8(2),97-112.
15. 15. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL,et al. COSMIN Study Design checklist for Patient-reported outcome measurement instruments. Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 2019.
16. 16. Broadbent DE, Cooper PF, FitzGerald P, Parkes KR. The cognitive failures questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British journal of clinical psychology 1982;21(1),1-16.
17. 17. Ekici G, Uysal, S. A., & Altuntaş, O. The validity and reliability of Cognitive failures questionnaire in university students. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon 2016;27(2),55-60.
18. 18. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000;25(24),3186-3191.
19. 19. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory 3E. Tata McGraw-hill education; 1996.
20. 20. Prinsen CA, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research 2018;27(5),1147-1157.
21. 21. Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2018;126(5),1763-1768.
22. 22. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2007;60(1),34-42.
23. 23. Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2010;63(7),737-745.
24. 24. De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL editors. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge university press; 2011.
25. 25. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of chiropractic medicine 2016;15(2),155-163.
26. 26. Di Girolamo M, Giromini L, Winters CL, Serie CM, De Ruiter C. The questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy: A comparison between paper-and-pencil versus online formats in Italian samples. Journal of Personality Assessment 2019;101(2),159-170.
27. 27. Seelye A, Mattek N, Howieson DB, et al. Embedded online questionnaire measures are sensitive to identifying mild cognitive impairment. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2016;30(2),152.
28. 28. Hohwü L, Lyshol H, Gissler M, Jonsson SH, Petzold M, Obel C. Web-based versus traditional paper questionnaires: a mixed-mode survey with a Nordic perspective. Journal of medical Internet research 2013;15(8),e173.