Reading comprehension ability predicts monitoring accuracy after a single reading but not after rereading (Experiments 1 and 2)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2008 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Comprehension ability accounted for variance in monitoring accuracy only in the read-once condition; rereading particularly benefited low-ability readers, eliminating the ability–accuracy relationship. → Griffin 2008 q3 i? Experiment 2 replicated the comprehension ability × rereading interaction. → Griffin 2008 (2)

Evidence¶

Griffin 2008¶

Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 93-103. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.93

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 1 regression of monitoring accuracy on condition, comprehension ability (an IVT factor score), and the interaction found a significant interaction, shown in Figure 1; the article reports that rereading produced marked accuracy improvements for low-ability readers but not for higher ability readers.

"Comprehension ability accounted for a sizable amount of the variance in monitoring accuracy when the participants read the texts only once (R2 .25) but accounted for no variance when they read the texts twice (R2 .00)."

Griffin 2008 (2)¶

Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 93-103. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.93

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 2 (94 introductory psychology students, two dropped) replicated the interaction, shown in Figure 2; the article reports that the positive effect of self-explaining did not interact with ability.

"Lower ability readers had particularly poor accuracy when they read only once (R2 .16), but their accuracy was higher when they reread (whereas that of higher ability readers remained unchanged), to the point where ability no longer predicted accuracy in the reread condition (R2 .01)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Working memory capacity predicts monitoring accuracy after a single reading but not after rereading, independently of comprehension ability (Experiment 2) — related
• Rereading significantly improves metacomprehension monitoring accuracy relative to reading once (Experiment 1) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Neither rereading nor self-explanation changed comprehension test performance itself; effects were specific to monitoring accuracy — related
• The context-learning effect did not significantly interact with reading comprehension ability, though the trend favored more able readers — related
• Relationships between individual differences and final test performance were nonsignificant in retrieval practice conditions but significant in the rereading condition — related
• Five of seven situation-model interventions significantly improved relative metacomprehension accuracy, concept mapping only marginally (p = .097), and self-explaining not significantly — related
• A self-explanation instruction during rereading improves monitoring accuracy for all readers above mere rereading (Experiment 2) — related
• Rereading is less effective than retrieval practice — related
• High-performing readers use more monitoring strategies while under-performing readers rely more on cognitive strategies like memorization — related