Compensatory strategies (CS) can assist in supporting everyday memory and functional independence. Digital compensatory strategies (e.g., calendar and notes apps) are being used more by older adults, but their effectiveness compared to paper-based strategies has been questioned due to their novelty and potential suitability. This study examined whether digital and non-digital strategies vary in quality and lead to accuracy differences in carrying out a set of real-world prospective memory (PM) tasks.

Seventy community-dwelling older adults (Mage= 70.80, SD = 7.87) completed two testing sessions remotely from home via Zoom. Participants were presented four real-world PM tasks (packing for overnight trip, creating physical activity summary, paying bill by due date, and calling lab to leave message) and were encouraged to use their typical CS to support task completion. The type and quality of CS, as well as accuracy of PM task completion, were assessed using lab-developed coding schemas. Quality scores were on a 0-3 point scale per task step (maximum total score = 63), and accuracy scores were on a 0-4 point scale (maximum score = 16). Participants were differentiated into two groups: those who used at least one digital CS (40 participants) and those who did not use digital CS (30 participants). T-tests were examined for group differences in number of CS utilized, CS quality, and PM accuracy. Within each group, correlations between CS quality and PM accuracy were conducted. Group comparisons were also conducted for demographics, cognitive test performances, and questionnaires.

The technology group (M = 13.90, SD = 5.43) utilized significantly more strategies than the non-technology group (M = 9.50, SD = 4.12), t(68) = -3.71, p < .05, d = 0.91, and the technology group’s strategies (M = 42.48, SD = 10.47) were significantly higher quality than the non-technology groups (M = 33.80, SD = 13.02), t(68) = -3.09, p < .05, d = 0.73. However, the technology (M = 12.30, SD = 2.48) and non-technology (m = 11.87, SD = 3.16) groups completed the four PM tasks with equivalent accuracy, p > .05. Correlational analyses revealed that higher quality strategies were associated with better PM performance for both the technology (r = .67, p < .001) and the non-technology group (r = .71, p < .001). Although the technology group reported higher comfort with technology, both groups reported comparable levels of quality of life and functional independence and performed similarly on cognitive tests. The technology group trended towards being younger and having a higher level of global cognitive status (p = .07), but there were no group differences in education level or premorbid verbal ability.

Digital compensatory strategies resulted in higher CS quality scores and more strategies used, but there was no significant difference in PM accuracy scores between digital and non-digital CS. Regardless of technology use, using high quality CS supported real-world PM performance. Interventions that focus on improving the quality of compensatory strategies being utilized by older adults may enhance everyday functioning.