same 7-item questionnaire and a 9-measure neuropsychological battery encompassing: general cognition (Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status); immediate and delayed word and paragraph (East Boston Memory Test) recall; category fluency; working memory (digit span-backwards); executive function (Oral Trail-Making Test-B [OTMT-B]). Informants completed self-administered, validated questionnaires (Structured Interview and Scoring Tool-MADRC-Informant Report). Results: Absolute agreement between selfand telephone-administered STIDA items ranged from 5894%. Several items were infrequently endorsed; thus, chance-corrected agreement was predictably low (kappa range1⁄40.05-0.41; weighted kappa for sum-of-items1⁄40.33). Participants were more likely to endorse memory complaints (e.g., remembering a list of items) in self-administered vs. telephone-interview formats (45% v. 31%, McNemar’s P1⁄40.04). Participants were more likely to endorsememory problems (e.g., overall change in memory ability) than informants (80% vs. 52%,McNemar’s P<0.001); however, informants appeared more likely to report “executive” symptoms (e.g., trouble following group conversations or a plot: 16% vs. 7%, McNemar’s P1⁄40.06). Regarding neuropsychological testing, STIDA responses were generally uncorrelated with performance. However, informant reports were significantly related to objective testing: e.g., mean difference in global z -score averaging all tests1⁄4-0.37 units (P1⁄40.03) for "trouble following group conversions/plots "-yes/no; mean difference in OTMT-B1⁄411.1 seconds (P1⁄40.05) for "difficulty understanding/following instructions "-yes/no. Conclusions: Participants were more likely to endorse complaints when providing unobserved, written responses versus during interviews, which may have important implications for screening in healthy samples without selfidentified memory concerns. Participants were more likely to report memory concerns, and informants to report executive problems. Finally, informantreported problems were associated with significantly worse objective global cognitive and executive performance, indicating validity and value of informant reports in cognitive studies using remote assessment methods.