Objective:Executive functions have been shown to predict prospective memory (PM) performance (Martin, Kliegel, & McDaniel, 2003). PM performance has also been associated with retrospective memory and working memory (Smith, 2003; McDaniel & Einstein, 2000). We investigated the association between PM performance and cognitive domains (executive functions, episodic memory, working memory) in adults at 40 years.Participants and Methods:The participants (n = 470, age 40) were part of a longitudinal study including a cohort with a history of a birth risk (eg. asphyxia, low birth weight, hyperbilirubinemia) prospectively followed since birth and controls without birth risks. PM performance was assessed using the new Finnish Proper Prospective Memory Test (PROPS) offering a score for laboratory tasks and naturalistic tasks separately, for event-based PM (EBPM) and time-based PM (TBPM) performance, and a total score. Composite scores of three cognitive domains - executive functions, episodic memory, working memory -were formed by converting raw scores of nine cognitive test (e.g. the Wechsler subtests, the Stroop test, the Trail Making Test) to z scores, summed up and averaged. We calculated Spearman’s correlation coefficient between the five PROPS scores and the composite scores of the cognitive domains.Results:The episodic memory domain score correlated significantly with the PROPS laboratory tasks (rs = .23, p = < .01), naturalistic tasks, (rs = .13, p = < .01), the total score (rs = .23, p = < .01), EBPM (rs = .25, p = < .01), and TBPM (rs = .15, p = < .01). The executive functions domain score correlated with the PROPS laboratory tasks (rs = .17, p = < .01), the total score (rs = .16, p = < .01) and EBPM (rs = .20, p = < .01). The associations between the working memory domain and the PROPS test varied, in the laboratory setting (rs = .14, p = < .01), in the total score (rs = .13, p = < .01) and in EBPM (rs = .21, p = < .01). Furthermore, the composite score of the combined episodic memory and executive functions domains correlated significantly with the PROPS test in the laboratory setting (rs = .25, p = < .01), in the total score (rs = .25, p = < .01) and in EBPM (rs = .28, p = < .01).Conclusions:The combination of the episodic memory domain and the executive functions domain was most associated with PM performance measured with the new Finnish Prospective Memory test (PROPS). Only the episodic memory domain was linked with the PROPS tasks in the naturalistic setting. Although the episodic memory domain was more associated with PM performance, the results support the multidomain nature of PM functions.