The ambivalent profile reported the highest OMR strategy use but achieved the lowest OMR performance, while the positive profile scored highest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The Positive Group outperformed both the Ambivalent Group and the Moderate Group on OMR scores despite reporting less proactive strategy use. → Zhu 2026 q2 i? The Ambivalent Group's mean reading score was the lowest of the three groups, contrary to its self-reported strategy confidence. → Zhu 2026

Evidence¶

Zhu 2026¶

Zhu, S., Yao, Y., Cheong, C. M., & Zhu, X. (2026). Latent motivational-emotional profiles and their effects on strategy use and performance in online multimodal reading tasks: A mixed-methods investigation. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2026.102386

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Wald chi-square tests (BCH approach) comparing the three latent profiles on OMR strategies and performance in the sample of 280 students; mean scores were G1 = 20.138, G2 = 15.337, G3 = 13.967, with the "Ambivalent Group (G3)" lowest.

"despite the Positive Group's less proactive strategy usage as reported, their online reading scores were significantly higher than those of the Ambivalent Group (G1-G3 = 4.801, p < .01), and also significantly surpassed those of the Moderate Group (G1-G2 = 6.171, p < .01)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The disorientation strategy negatively predicted OMR performance in the moderate and ambivalent profiles but not in the positive profile — related
• Hong Kong fourth graders' OMR self-efficacy and emotions form three distinct motivational-emotional profiles: positive, moderate, and ambivalent — a broader claim this one bears on
• Ambivalent-profile students undervalued visual information and rigidly applied print-reading strategies, undermining their OMR comprehension — related
• Strategy effectiveness varied across profiles: main idea selection helped only the ambivalent group and trial-and-error helped only the moderate group — related