Metacognitive measures show large variability, and online measures relate to each other more than to offline measures¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2027: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The 128 participants showed large variability across all metacognitive measures, and the authors interpret the pattern as online measures being associated with each other but not much with offline measures. → Terneusen 2024

Evidence¶

Terneusen 2024¶

Terneusen, A., Quaedflieg, C., van Heugten, C., Ponds, R., & Winkens, I. (2024). The many facets of metacognition: comparing multiple measures of metacognition in healthy individuals. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09350-1

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Descriptive finding from the single online correlational study of 128 healthy volunteers; the article reports "a large variability in scores on all the different metacognitive measures". The online/offline dissociation is the authors' interpretation of the regression pattern, not a separately tested correlation.

"The 128 included participants show a large variability in scores on all the different metacognitive measures."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Online (versus offline) measures of metacognition are associated with larger metacognition–math effect sizes — related
• The choice of online versus offline measures of SRL moderates the strength of the relationship between SRL processes and achievement — related
• The combination of online metacognition measures with complex math assessments is associated with the largest effect sizes — related
• Heterogeneity between studies of the metacognition–math association is significant and remains high in all moderator analyses — related
• Studies collecting both subjective and objective effort measures reveal dissociations between the two types of measures — related