Monitoring accuracy in exam score predictions and in key-term definition judgments during the Monitoring Exercise were uncorrelated, suggesting different cues underlie the two measures¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Absolute accuracy at t=0 did not correlate significantly with absolute accuracy during the Monitoring Exercise (r = .15, p = .18). → de Bruin 2017

Evidence¶

de Bruin 2017¶

de Bruin, A. B. H., Kok, E. M., Lobbestael, J., & de Grip, A. (2017). The impact of an online tool for monitoring and regulating learning at university: overconfidence, learning strategy, and personality. Metacognition and Learning, 12, 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9159-5

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Correlational analysis within the intervention study comparing the two monitoring accuracy measures; the article interprets the non-significant correlation as indicating the measures draw on partially different cues.

"there was no significant correlation between absolute accuracy at t =0 a n d absolute accuracy during the Monitoring Exercise, r =. 1 5 ,p = .18, showing that these mea- surements of monitoring accuracy are based on (partially) different cues"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Monitoring accuracy score does not moderate the effort–monitoring correlation — related
• Grandiose narcissism predicted overconfidence in exam score predictions at both time points, while vulnerable narcissism predicted less overconfidence only at course start and optimism was unrelated — related
• The Monitoring Exercise protected against overconfidence in the second exam score prediction but did not affect exam scores — related