Calibration (judgment accuracy) measures such as the Goodman-Kruskall gamma coefficient and signal detection theory's d' can be empirically compared, and calibration may vary across knowledge domains¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2014: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Winne and Muis question the preference for the Goodman-Kruskall gamma coefficient over signal detection theory's d' by reviewing literature and empirically comparing the two calibration measures, and examine whether calibration varies across three domains of knowledge. → Gonny Schellings & Bernadette Van Hout-Wolters 2011

Evidence¶

Gonny Schellings & Bernadette Van Hout-Wolters 2011¶

Gonny Schellings & Bernadette Van Hout-Wolters. (2011). Measuring strategy use with self-report instruments: theoretical and empirical considerations. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9081-9

q2 · i? · review · r2

Overview of the special issue's final methodological contribution, in which participants received three knowledge tests and judged the correctness of each answer. The editorial describes the comparison of G and d' and the cross-domain question without reporting the outcome here.

"Winne and Muis question this by reviewing literature and by empirically comparing G and d '. Furthermore, they examine whether a learner 's calibration varies across three domains of knowledge."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• Elementary school children monitor and control their answers to open-ended text comprehension questions more accurately than answers to true-false questions — related