Low questionnaire–think-aloud correlations may have two alternative explanations besides poor self-report ability: the methods may measure different strategies or be aimed at different tasks¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q1
Currency · newest study 2011 · checked against its sources 2026-10-22 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2014: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The article argues that low correlations between questionnaires and think-aloud measures may arise because the compared methods target learning strategies different in content, or because a general questionnaire is compared with a think-aloud measure of one specific task. → Gonny Schellings 2011

Evidence¶

Gonny Schellings 2011¶

Gonny Schellings. (2011). Applying learning strategy questionnaires: problems and possibilities. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9069-5

q1 · i? · associational · r1

Theoretical argument in the article's review section: questionnaires aimed at 'orienting', 'structuring' and 'evaluating' may be compared with protocols coded for 'monitoring', 'guiding' and 'reflecting', and general 'task-exceeding' questionnaires should be expected to correlate lowly with task-bound think-aloud measures. The article offers this as an argument, not a tested result.

"explaining the low correlations may involve two other aspects: the learning strategies measured and the learning task to which the measurement is related."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Schellings' questionnaire-thinking-aloud convergent correlation of .51 rests on a small sample and is questionable against other studies — related
• A task-specific questionnaire built item-by-item from a think-aloud coding taxonomy correlated r=.51 with think-aloud protocols, higher than the -.07 to .42 regularly reported — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• When SRL is measured at a coarse grain size (global self-regulation), students are relatively well able to report on their strategy use — related
• At scale level, the questionnaire's Elaboration & evaluation scale correlated significantly with the same think-aloud scale (r=.60) while the Orientation & planning scale did not (r=.24) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• In the case study, students answering the questionnaire while thinking aloud showed misunderstanding of items, general rather than task-specific reference perspectives, middle-category 'neutral' answering, and probable social desirability — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Questionnaire data may capture learners' perceptions rather than the strategies they actually performed — related
• In the case study, the student with the most coded activities scored highest on the questionnaire and the student with the fewest scored lowest, but all four over-rated Orienting & planning relative to their protocols — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• When SRL is measured at a fine grain size (specific strategies), self-reports show low calibration with behavioral measures — related
• Self-report factors correlate weakly with metacognitive behavior while within-factor subcomponent correlations are larger, per studies reviewed for the meta-analysis — related
• Questionnaire measures of curiosity are difficult to use validly with young children — related
• External validity of the special-issue strategy measures was mixed: low-to-moderate comprehension correlations for Bräten and Strømsø and Magliano et al., indeterminate for Schellings and Winne and Muis — related
• Task-based and questionnaire-based EF measures show consistently low correlations and may assess partially distinct phenomena — related
• A general self-report metacognition questionnaire shows no relationship with word problem solving performance and no convergence with on-line metacognitive measures in grade 5 — related
• Think-aloud reports are incomplete and sometimes nonveridical, particularly for metacognitive processes — related