Subjective cognitive complaints and objective memory performance influence prompt preference for instrumental activities of daily living
E.J. Van Etten, A. Weakley, M. Schmitter-Edgecombe, D. Cook
Full text PDF 
( Download count: 566)
AbstractIntroduction Declines in memory and executive functioning often lead to difficulties completing instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). Prompting technologies have the potential to help promote aging in place by providing support for the initiation and accurate completion of IADLs. In this study, we evaluate preferences of older adults for different levels of prompting support based on subjective and objective measures of cognitive functioning. Method Participants were 170 community-dwelling older adults split into two cognitive complaint groups: cognitive complaints and few cognitive complaints. After completing six IADL tasks (e.g., organize a pillbox, cook), each participant was asked to make a specific error (e.g., leave stove on) on three of the tasks. They were then prompted to correct the error with one of three different prompt modes: verbal indirect, verbal direct, multimodal verbal direct and video. Results The cognitive complaints group reported greater preference for the multimodal prompt compared to the few cognitive complaints group. The indirect prompt was the least preferred by both groups. Furthermore, participants who recalled less on objective memory measures preferred more support in terms of prompt mode. Executive functioning did not appear to be related to prompt preference. Conclusion Level of subjective cognitive complaints and objective memory performance may influence amount of support preferred in a prompt.Keywords: adult, aging, assistive technology, prompting, cognitive impairment
E.J. Van Etten, A. Weakley, M. Schmitter-Edgecombe, D. Cook (2016). Subjective cognitive complaints and objective memory performance influence prompt preference for instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontechnology, 14(3), 169-176
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2016.14.3.011.00