Sample Items From the Memory Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (MSEQ)

1. Abstract

The Memory Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (MSEQ), formulated by Jane M. Berry, Robin L. West, and Dierdre M. Dennehey in 1989, is a premier psychometric instrument engineered to evaluate an individual’s subjective beliefs regarding their operational mnemonic capacity across distinct everyday situations. Operating within the conceptual architecture of Albert Bandura‘s social cognitive theory, the MSEQ departs from broad-spectrum metamemory inventories by adopting a task-specific, hierarchical micro-level assessment paradigm. The instrument comprises 50 distinct items grouped systematically into 10 everyday memory domains, each evaluated across five ascending, graded tiers of objective task difficulty. Each assessment item utilizes an authentic two-step response architecture: a dichotomous capability evaluation (“Can do? Yes / No”) followed immediately by a calibrated probability rating indicating personal certainty or confidence, ranging from 10% to 100% in 10% increments.

From this psychometric structure, two primary metrics are derived: the Level Score (quantifying the absolute magnitude of perceived mnemonic capability across items, ranging from 0 to 50) and the Strength Score (representing the mean subjective confidence percentage across tasks, with negative capability responses anchored at 0%). Psychometric investigations have repeatedly confirmed that the MSEQ possesses high internal consistency, with total scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely exceeding .90 (typically spanning .92 to .96) and individual subscale coefficients ranging from .75 to .89. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate a robust hierarchical construct, supporting both a primary overarching memory self-efficacy factor and differentiated functional factors corresponding to verbal, visuospatial, and prospective ecological demands. The MSEQ exhibits substantial convergent and predictive validity, significantly predicting objective episodic recall, strategic mnemonics utilization, cognitive intervention responsiveness, and vulnerability to stereotype threat among aging populations.

2. Keywords

Memory Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, MSEQ, metamemory, cognitive aging, self-efficacy theory, subjective cognitive decline, episodic memory, memory monitoring, confidence calibration, psychometrics

3. Authors

The Memory Self-Efficacy Questionnaire was developed through a scientific collaboration between researchers specializing in developmental psychology, cognitive aging, and psychometric assessment:

• Jane M. Berry, Ph.D.: Conducted foundational psychometric research on the instrument while affiliated with the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research (now the Institute of Personality and Social Research) at the University of California, Berkeley. She subsequently served as a prominent professor of psychology at the University of Richmond, continuing extensive empirical inquiries into metacognition, stereotype threat, and memory aging.
• Robin L. West, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Florida. Dr. West is an internationally recognized scholar in cognitive gerontology, memory self-efficacy, everyday cognitive competence, and metacognitive training interventions for older adults.
• Dierdre M. Dennehey, M.S.: Research scientist and psychometrician who collaborated at the Department of Psychology, University of Florida, contributing extensively to the structural formulation, test administration protocols, and initial psychometric validation across adult lifespan cohorts.

4. Purpose

The primary clinical and empirical objective of the Memory Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (MSEQ) is to deliver a granular, microanalytic assessment of an individual’s perceived cognitive capability across distinct, ecologically valid memory demands. Prior to the design of the MSEQ, prevailing instruments assessing subjective memory—such as the Metamemory in Adulthood (MIA) questionnaire or the Memory Functioning Questionnaire (MFQ)—primarily measured global self-appraisals, affective complaints, or retrospective frequencies of memory failures. While valuable, these omnibus measures failed to align with the core operational prerequisites established by Bandura’s self-efficacy paradigm, which demands that self-efficacy be measured at specific performance gradations within well-defined operational contexts.

In clinical neuropsychology and cognitive gerontology, the MSEQ resolves critical assessment gaps. Objective performance on laboratory cognitive batteries often correlates weakly with real-world functional independence or patients’ subjective memory complaints. The MSEQ quantifies the mediating cognitive belief structures that influence how individuals approach everyday memory challenges. Specifically, low memory self-efficacy can trigger an insidious cascade: individuals who doubt their cognitive competence experience heightened autonomic anxiety, exhibit premature task disengagement, withhold effort, under-utilize strategic compensatory behaviors (such as visual imagery or categorical clustering), and misattribute normal retrieval latencies to irreversible neurodegeneration.

Consequently, the MSEQ is utilized extensively in cognitive training initiatives, neurorehabilitation programs, and longitudinal aging studies. It enables clinicians and researchers to:

• Distinguish between genuine neuropathological decline (such as observed in Mild Cognitive Impairment or early Alzheimer’s disease) and subjective, reversible memory underconfidence linked to depressive pseudodementia, internalized ageist stereotypes, or low cognitive morale.
• Assess baseline levels and changes in subjective cognitive empowerment resulting from mnemonic training programs and behavioral interventions.
• Model individual differences in cognitive reserve and compensatory mechanism deployment in community-dwelling older adults.
• Track dynamic fluctuations in metacognitive calibration by directly contrasting MSEQ probability ratings against subsequent objective recall performance across parallel task demands.

5. Psychological Construct

The central psychological construct measured by the instrument is Memory Self-Efficacy (MSE), conceptualized as an individual’s domain-specific conviction that they can successfully execute the cognitive actions required to encode, consolidate, retain, and retrieve information under varying situational parameters and task loads. Memory self-efficacy does not represent a static global self-concept or a measure of general self-esteem; rather, it reflects a dynamic, generative metacognitive belief system that continuously informs an individual’s evaluation of their cognitive agency.

The MSEQ breaks down this overarching construct into two distinct, psychometrically quantifiable dimensions:

• Efficacy Level (Magnitude): Reflects the total threshold of difficulty a respondent believes they can conquer. Operates on a Guttman-like progressive difficulty scale across the 10 domains.
• Efficacy Strength (Certainty): Reflects the robust subjective confidence accompanying those capability assertions, capturing psychological vulnerability or decisional resolve when facing task demands.

The scale systematically surveys memory self-efficacy across 10 distinct ecological memory domains, each operationalized through five progressive difficulty increments:

• Grocery List Recall (Auditory-Verbal Serial Memory): Quantifies beliefs regarding working memory span and the short-to-intermediate retention of discrete categorical items delivered orally across two presentations without external aids. Demands conscious internal rehearsal strategies.
• First and Last Names of New Acquaintances (Associative Binding): Assesses perceived capacity to bind novel phonological labels to complex social entities and retrieve both components accurately over a 15-minute delay following a social gathering.
• Recognizing Faces (Perceptual-Visual Memory): Measures visual recognition memory for previously seen human faces across a 24-hour retention interval, assessing structural perceptual encoding separate from verbal recall.
• Remembering Telephone Numbers (Immediate Numerical Working Memory): Measures immediate mental span for unstructured numerical sequences (digits 3 through 7) under single-exposure conditions without rehearsal aids.
• Driving / Street Directions (Visuospatial Sequential Memory): Evaluates perceived capacity to mentally represent, integrate, and execute multi-step topological directions in an unfamiliar geographic area.
• Magazine Article / Story Recall (Complex Prose Discourse Processing): Measures the retention of macrostructural, thematic, and propositional factual points from complex printed prose over a 60-minute delay.
• Retaining Important Dates / Appointments (Prospective Event Memory): Assesses beliefs regarding prospective memory—remembering to execute intended actions at precise temporal points in the future without relying on external planners or technological cues.
• Remembering Where Objects Were Placed (Spatial Location Memory): Measures spatial-contextual memory regarding where everyday objects were placed in irregular or non-habitual positions.
• Names of Common Objects / Word Finding (Lexical-Semantic Access): Quantifies self-efficacy concerning instantaneous semantic retrieval and spontaneous word finding without experiencing tip-of-the-tongue states.
• Television / Radio News Items (Multimodal Discourse Memory): Evaluates perceived memory for dynamic, multi-topic audiovisual information presented in contemporary broadcast formats.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the MSEQ is grounded in Albert Bandura‘s Social Cognitive Theory (1977, 1986, 1997), specifically the construct of perceived self-efficacy. Bandura defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments.” Bandura distinguished sharply between outcome expectations (the belief that a given behavior will lead to a particular outcome) and efficacy expectations (the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcome). The MSEQ is designed specifically to capture efficacy expectations concerning cognitive processing.

According to social cognitive theory, self-efficacy beliefs are cultivated and modified through four fundamental informational pathways:

• Enactive Mastery Experiences: Authentic past performance successes build robust efficacy, whereas repeated memory failures undermine it, especially early in skill acquisition.
• Vicarious Experiences: Observing peer cohorts successfully complete or fail memory challenges establishes comparative benchmarks for one’s own capability.
• Verbal / Social Persuasion: Encouragement, social validation, or internalized cultural stereotypes regarding mental decline influence a person’s willingness to engage in cognitive effort.
• Physiological and Affective States: Somatic arousal, cognitive fatigue, and state anxiety during memory tasks are often misinterpreted as indicators of failing cognitive hardware.

The MSEQ bridges Bandura’s cognitive architecture with metacognitive theory, particularly the framework formulated by Nelson and Narens (1990) concerning monitoring and control processes. Metacognitive monitoring informs an individual’s self-efficacy beliefs, which in turn govern metacognitive control: allocating study time, implementing internal mnemonic strategies, and persisting through complex cognitive challenges.

In developmental cognitive psychology, the MSEQ intersects with Stereotype Embodiment Theory and models of cognitive aging. When aging individuals internalize pervasive societal stereotypes characterizing late life as a period of unavoidable intellectual decline, their self-efficacy beliefs decrease. This drop in self-efficacy triggers a self-fulfilling cycle: reduced confidence prompts elevated performance anxiety, which impairs working memory capacity and executive function, ultimately degrading objective memory performance.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the MSEQ has been confirmed through extensive empirical testing across young, middle-aged, and older adult cohorts:

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was established by Berry, West, and Dennehey (1989) by demonstrating that MSEQ scores capture an integrated cognitive belief system distinct from general self-esteem or global affect. Confirmatory factor analysis confirms that while individual tasks form distinct sub-dimensions, they load significantly onto a higher-order general Memory Self-Efficacy factor, with standardized loadings ranging from .48 to .82 across domains.

Convergent Validity

The MSEQ demonstrates robust positive correlations with related metacognitive constructs. The MSEQ Strength Score correlates significantly with the Capacity subscale of the Metamemory in Adulthood (MIA) questionnaire ($r = .52$ to $.68, p < .001$) and the Change subscale of the MIA ($r = .41$ to $.56$). Furthermore, MSEQ scores correlate positively with the Memory Controllability Inventory (MCI) and measures of internal locus of control for memory ($r = .38$ to $.51$).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by modest or non-significant correlations with unrelated affective and personality constructs. The MSEQ correlates weakly with generalized self-esteem ($r = .18$ to $.26$) and exhibits distinct divergence from general trait anxiety ($r = -.14$, non-significant). While depressive symptoms—assessed via the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS)—exhibit moderate negative associations with MSEQ ($r = -.30$ to $-.42$), regression models demonstrate that the MSEQ retains substantial unique variance when predicting objective cognitive outcomes after controlling for depressive affect.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

The MSEQ demonstrates strong criterion validity in predicting both laboratory cognitive test performance and everyday memory behaviors. Berry and colleagues (1989) observed that pre-test MSEQ scores significantly predicted subsequent performance on associative face-name learning tasks ($r = .35, p < .01$) and text comprehension assessments ($r = .42, p < .001$). Importantly, experimental studies demonstrate that manipulating self-efficacy (via rigged performance feedback) leads to predictable changes in subsequent objective memory performance, confirming the causal influence of memory self-efficacy beliefs.

8. Reliability

The MSEQ exhibits excellent psychometric reliability across diverse populations:

Internal Consistency

Across validation and replication studies, the MSEQ demonstrates high internal consistency. In the foundational normative investigation by Berry, West, and Dennehey (1989), the total scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the Strength Score was $\alpha = .94$ in younger adults and $\alpha = .95$ in community-dwelling older adults. For the Level Score, Cronbach’s alpha reached $\alpha = .91$ and $\alpha = .93$, respectively.

Individual domain subscales (comprising 5 items each across difficulty gradations) display sound internal consistency despite their brevity:

• Grocery List Recall: $\alpha = .86$
• First and Last Names: $\alpha = .84$
• Recognizing Faces: $\alpha = .79$
• Telephone Numbers: $\alpha = .88$
• Driving Directions: $\alpha = .82$
• Magazine Article: $\alpha = .85$
• Retaining Appointments: $\alpha = .81$
• Object Locations: $\alpha = .83$
• Common Object Names: $\alpha = .76$
• News Broadcast Items: $\alpha = .80$

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Test-retest reliability evaluations conducted over a two-week interval yielded intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of $r = .88$ ($p < .001$) for the total Strength Score and $r = .84$ ($p < .001$) for the Level Score. Longitudinal studies spanning 6-month to 12-month retest windows confirm stable measurement properties in healthy older populations ($r = .72$ to $.79$), demonstrating that the MSEQ reliably captures stable self-referential beliefs while remaining sensitive to targeted training interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The internal structure of the MSEQ has been examined through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), clarifying the relationship between its 10 task domains and overall self-efficacy construct.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Initial principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation conducted by Berry et al. on adult samples revealed that the 10 domains are organized around three salient, intercorrelated empirical dimensions that account for approximately 62.4% of the total variance:

• Factor 1: Complex Verbal and Discourse Memory: Comprises Magazine Article Recall, News Items, and Grocery List Recall, with factor loadings ranging from .64 to .82.
• Factor 2: Associative Social and Perceptual Memory: Comprises Face Recognition, First and Last Names, and Word Finding / Object Naming, with factor loadings spanning .58 to .77.
• Factor 3: Spatial, Working Memory, and Prospective Navigation: Comprises Driving Directions, Telephone Numbers, Object Locations, and Retaining Appointments, with loadings between .51 and .75.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Subsequent structural equation modeling has evaluated multiple alternative structural models. A single-factor general model demonstrates acceptable fit, but a hierarchical bifactor model exhibits superior fit across developmental cohorts:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .948
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .939
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .048 (90% CI [.042, .054])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .041

In this hierarchical specification, each item loads onto its specific domain factor, each domain loads onto its respective broad cognitive functional factor, and all factors are subsumed under a general, higher-order Memory Self-Efficacy dimension. These findings justify calculating both an overall global MSEQ composite score as well as profile-based domain scores.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Memory Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (MSEQ)
• Alternative Title: Berry-West Memory Self-Efficacy Scale
• Construct Assessed: Domain-specific perceived memory capabilities and subjective confidence calibration across ecological task demands
• Administration Format: Standardized paper-and-pencil self-report or computer-administered digital assessment; can be completed via supervised individual administration, group testing, or remote survey protocols
• Total Items: 50 items (organized into 10 everyday memory domains, each evaluated across 5 ascending difficulty gradations)
• Completion Time: Approximately 15 to 20 minutes
• Target Population: Adults across the lifespan (validated with young adults aged 18–30, middle-aged adults aged 31–59, and community-dwelling older adults aged 60–90+)
• Item Architecture & Response Scale: Two-step rating for each task difficulty level:
  • Step 1 (Level / Capability): Dichotomous confirmation: Can do? [No / Yes]
  • Step 2 (Strength / Confidence): Subjective certainty percentage rating: Confidence rating: 10% to 100% in 10% increments (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 100%)
• Scoring Methodology:
  • MSEQ Level Score: The total number of “Yes” endorsements across all 50 items. Yields a total magnitude score ranging from 0 to 50, where higher scores signify perceived capacity across increasingly challenging memory loads.
  • MSEQ Strength Score: The mean confidence rating computed across all 50 items. For any item where the respondent answers “No” in Step 1, the confidence percentage is anchored at 0%. If the respondent answers “Yes”, their indicated confidence percentage (10% to 100%) is recorded. The total sum is divided by 50 (or averaged per domain), yielding a global Strength score ranging from 0% to 100%.
  • Domain Subscale Scores: Level scores (0 to 5) and Strength scores (0% to 100%) can be computed independently for each of the 10 domains to generate a profile of memory self-efficacy.
• Clinical Interpretation Guidelines:
  • High Memory Self-Efficacy (Strength > 75%, Level > 38): Reflects strong subjective cognitive agency, linked to effective strategy use and resilient performance under stress.
  • Moderate Memory Self-Efficacy (Strength 50%–74%, Level 25–37): Typical performance beliefs seen in healthy community-dwelling adults.
  • Low Memory Self-Efficacy (Strength < 50%, Level < 25): Suggests notable underconfidence, heightened vulnerability to cognitive failure attributions, and elevated risk of performance anxiety. Warrant further evaluation to differentiate between subjective cognitive decline, clinical depression, or early neurodegenerative processes.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Memory Self-Efficacy Questionnaire was formally introduced in 1989 through its foundational publication in Developmental Psychology:

Berry, J. M., West, R. L., & Dennehey, D. M. (1989). Reliability and validity of the Memory Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 701–713.

The copyright for the original article and psychometric scale is held by the American Psychological Association (APA). The MSEQ is widely accessible for academic, scientific, clinical, and non-commercial educational research purposes. Standard academic fair use policies apply: investigators may reproduce and use the instrument within scholarly studies without royalty fees, provided complete formal bibliographic citation is given to the original authors and the APA. Commercial redistribution, inclusion within proprietary software platforms, or fee-based clinical diagnostic packages requires prior written copyright authorization from the APA Rights and Permissions Office.

12. References

• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Berry, J. M., West, R. L., & Dennehey, D. M. (1989). Reliability and validity of the Memory Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.5.701
• Cavanaugh, J. C., & Poon, L. W. (1989). Metamemorial predictors of memory performance in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 4(3), 365–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.4.3.365
• Dixon, R. A., & Hultsch, D. F. (1983). Structure and development of metamemory in adulthood. Journal of Gerontology, 38(6), 682–688. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/38.6.682
• Hertzog, C., Dixon, R. A., & Hultsch, D. F. (1990). Relationships between attitudes, beliefs, and memory performance in adulthood and old age. Psychology and Aging, 5(2), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.5.2.215
• Lachman, M. E., Bandura, M., Weaver, S. L., & Elliott, E. (1995). Assessing memory control beliefs: The Memory Controllability Inventory. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 2(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825589508256589
• Levy, B. (2009). Stereotype embodiment: A psychosocial approach to aging. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(6), 332–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01662.x
• Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5
• West, R. L., Bagwell, D. K., & Dark-Freudeman, A. (2008). Self-efficacy and memory aging: The impact of a memory intervention on beliefs, memory performance, strategy use, and stress. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 15(6), 733–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825580802240866
• West, R. L., & Berry, J. M. (1994). Age differences in everyday memory self-efficacy: Objective and subjective influences. In Metacognition: Cognitive and Social Dimensions. SAGE Publications.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)