Cromley and Azevedo's prompted strategy-use measure correlated .23–.74 with other measures and accounted for about 30% of comprehension variance on average¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · theoretical r3 · 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¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Cromley and Azevedo (this issue) obtained correlations ranging from .23 to .74 between strategy-use MC-questions and other measures for background knowledge, inference, vocabulary, and word reading. → Marcel V. J. Veenman 2011 q2 i? In the same study, strategy use accounted for 30% of variance in comprehension on the average. → Marcel V. J. Veenman 2011 (2)

Evidence¶

Marcel V. J. Veenman 2011¶

Marcel V. J. Veenman. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: a discussion. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9080-x

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

Discussion of convergent-validity correlations in a study that prompted learners with multiple-choice questions to enact strategies after reading a text fragment. The article argues that validating a process measure with non-process measures such as vocabulary and word reading seems like comparing apples and oranges, and convergent validity would likely increase if non-process measures were excluded.

"Cromley and Azevedo (this issue) obtained correlations ranging from .23 to .74 between strategy-use MC-questions and other measures for background knowledge, inference, vocabulary, and word reading"

Marcel V. J. Veenman 2011 (2)¶

Marcel V. J. Veenman. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: a discussion. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9080-x

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

External-validity evidence discussed in the discussion section: in the prompted MC-question enactment study, strategy use showed substantial average relations to reading comprehension. This is reported as an R²-type variance figure, not a standardized effect size.

"In the study of Cromley and Azevedo (this issue), on the other hand, correlations showed that strategy use accounted for 30% of variance in comprehension on the average"

Discussion¶

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
Within-method convergence (RSAT coding vs human coding; G vs d') indicates stability, not construct validity — related
Reading comprehension variance is fully shared with listening comprehension and word reading — related
Schellings' questionnaire-thinking-aloud convergent correlation of .51 rests on a small sample and is questionable against other studies — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`cromley-azevedo-strategy-mc-correlations-variance`
`title`	`Cromley and Azevedo's prompted strategy-use measure correlated .23–.74 with other measures and accounted for about 30% of comprehension variance on average`
`description`	`Cromley and Azevedo's prompted strategy-use measure correlated .23–.74 with other measures and accounted for about 30% of comprehension variance on average`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`weak`
`newest_evidence`	`2011`
`recheck_by`	`2014`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-16`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `marcel-v-j-veenman-2011`, `marcel-v-j-veenman-2011-2`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.