STUDY 1: SELF-REPORT QUESTIONNAIRE STUDY Retrospective and prospective remembering in adults with developmental dyslexia James H. Smith-Spark, Adam P. Zięcik, and Christopher Sterling London South Bank University, London, United Kingdom INTRODUCTION   This study explored the self-reported relative frequency of day-to-day memory failures in adults with and without dyslexia, focusing on two under-investigated memory domains. Prospective memory (PM) is memory for delayed intentions (Winograd, 1988) or remembering to remember (Mäntylä, 1994). Evidence for poorer PM in dyslexia comes from: Anecdotal reports of increased forgetfulness in children (Augur, 1985) Self-report evidence of RM and PM deficits in children (Khan, 2014) Items from a questionnaire tapping everyday cognitive failures are suggestive of PM problems in adults with dyslexia (Smith-Spark, Fawcett, Nicolson & Fisk, 2004) Laboratory evidence of time-based PM problems in adults with dyslexia (Smith-Spark, Zięcik & Sterling, 2016). Retrospective memory (RM) is memory for personally experienced past events Evidence for poorer RM in dyslexia comes from: Poorer recall of word lists and previously experienced events in children with dyslexia (McNamara & Wong, 2003; Menghini, Carlesimo, Marotta, Finzi & Vicari, 2010; Nelson & Warrington, 1980). Therefore, there is some evidence, mainly from children and usually in response to discrete tasks or events, to suggest dyslexia-related memory problems in these areas. Memory failures in adulthood are likely to have greater consequences for the individual with dyslexia and need to be explored to understand their likely impact. Two studies are presented below, using different self-report methodologies to record the incidence of memory failure in day-to-day life. STUDY 1: SELF-REPORT QUESTIONNAIRE STUDY METHOD Twenty-eight adults with dyslexia and 26 adults without dyslexia, matched for age and short-form IQ and differing significantly on measures of reading and spelling. Sixteen-item Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ; Smith, Della Sala, Logie & Maylor, 2000) administered. Probes self-rated frequency of errors ((1 = Never to 5 = Very often) In prospective and retrospective memory Over short and long delays In response to self-generated versus environmental cues. Proxy-ratings obtained from close associates of the PRMQ respondents Using same questions as the PRMQ. RESULTS Adults with dyslexia rated themselves as significantly more prone to error, Wilks’ Λ = .628, F(8, 45) = 3.33, p = .005, ηp2 = .372. Significant differences on seven of the eight PRMQ scales after Bonferroni corrections applied. The group differences are shown as effects sizes on the graphs below, indicating the mean ratings of the adults with dyslexia relative to those without dyslexia. Proxy-rating respondents also reported a greater frequency of memory failures in the group with dyslexia. No significant differences in ratings between PRMQ respondents and proxy-PRMQ respondents. No interactions between participant group and respondent type. DISCUSSION In indicating memory problems in everyday life, the PRMQ findings are consistent with those found by Khan (2014) in children. Dyslexia-related problems with both RM and PM would seem, therefore, to persist into adulthood across a range of different types of situations. Problems do not seem to result from lowered self-esteem (e.g., Riddick, Sterling, Farmer & Morgan, 1999) as they were reported also by proxy-PRMQ respondents. STUDY 2: DIARY STUDY METHOD Twenty-four adults with dyslexia (7 females, 17 males) and an age-matched control group of 21 adults without dyslexia (9 females, 12 males). The participants were given a 15-page A4 booklet to write down the everyday cognitive failures which they experienced over a two-week period. RESULTS Group difference was not statistically significant, (p = .212, ηp2 = .068) Significantly more PM failures reported than RM failures (p < .001, ηp2 = .354) Group x memory type interaction fell short of significance (p = .084, ηp2 = .068) DISCUSSION Whilst non-significant, the overall trend is consistent with the results of Study 1 in highlighting a greater susceptibility to PM failure in adults with dyslexia. The results of Study 2 do not, however, support the RM difficulties reported in Study 1. This study did not emphasise memory failures in particular and this may have led to differences in reporting compared with asking participants directly about memory failures (rather than the more general cognitive failures). A lack of difference in RM scores may also reflect failures typically being less noteworthy and frustrating. GENERAL DISCUSSION Memory problems found on laboratory-based tasks would seem to be reflected in everyday cognition. Given their self-reported and pervasive impact on day-to-day life, more research is needed to explore difficulties in these two hitherto neglected memory systems and to provide a greater evidence base for supporting adults with dyslexia. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Study 1 was completed in partial fulfilment of Adam Zięcik’s PhD thesis at London South Bank University, supervised by Jamie Smith-Spark and Chris Sterling. Jamie Smith-Spark would like to thank John Fisk, Rod Nicolson, and Angela Fawcett for their expert advice on Study 2, which formed a part of his PhD thesis at the University of Sheffield.