Generating delayed keywords does not reduce bias in comprehension judgments¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 The keyword groups did not differ significantly from the control group in bias, and the printed effect size was negligible (ηp2 = .00). → Waldeyer 2021

Evidence¶

Waldeyer 2021¶

Waldeyer, J., & Roelle, J. (2021). The keyword effect: A conceptual replication, effects on bias, and an optimization. Metacognition and Learning, 16, 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09235-7

q3 · i0 · causal · r2

Contrast analysis on bias (z-standardized JOLs minus z-standardized posttest performance) at the first measurement time point in the same experiment (keyword groups vs. control). "no significant effect was found for bias", t(105) = 0.29, p = .384 (one-tailed), ηp2 = .00; equivalence was not tested.

"no significant effect was found for bias, t(105) = 0.29, p =. 3 8 4( o n e-tailed), ηp2 =. 0 0"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Generating or comparing keywords had no substantial effect on posttest learning performance
• Comprehension judgments and performance predictions correlate highly, supporting the validity of the study's z-standardized bias measure to some extent — related
• Generating keywords after a delay increases relative judgment accuracy compared with no keyword generation, replicating the keyword effect with a new sample and new materials — related
• Comparing self-generated keywords with expert keywords increases bias, specifically underconfidence — related
• Comprehension-test expectancy tended to be more effective than delayed-keywords listing and rereading, though interventions did not substantially differ overall — related
• Five of seven situation-model interventions significantly improved relative metacomprehension accuracy, concept mapping only marginally (p = .097), and self-explaining not significantly — related