At scale level, the questionnaire's Elaboration & evaluation scale correlated significantly with the same think-aloud scale (r=.60) while the Orientation & planning scale did not (r=.24)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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? The Elaboration & evaluation scale of the questionnaire reached a significant correlation (r=.60) with the same scale in the think-aloud method, whereas the Orientation & planning scale did not (r=.24). → Gonny Schellings 2011
Evidence¶
Gonny Schellings 2011¶
Gonny Schellings. (2011). Applying learning strategy questionnaires: problems and possibilities. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9069-5
q2 · i? · associational · r1
Scale-level correlational analysis in the comparative study (16 ninth-graders), restricted to the two scales with moderate-to-high reliability; Elaboration & evaluation correlated r=.60, Orientation & planning r=.24.
"It appeared that the Elaboration & evaluation scale of the questionnaire reached a significant correlation ( r =.60) with the same scale in the think-aloud method, whereas the Orientation & planning scale did not ( r=.24)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Low questionnaire–think-aloud correlations may have two alternative explanations besides poor self-report ability: the methods may measure different strategies or be aimed at different tasks — a broader claim this one bears on
- A task-specific questionnaire built item-by-item from a think-aloud coding taxonomy correlated r=.51 with think-aloud protocols, higher than the -.07 to .42 regularly reported — a broader claim this one bears on
- Schellings' questionnaire-thinking-aloud convergent correlation of .51 rests on a small sample and is questionable against other studies — reports the opposite
- Most subscale reliabilities of the task-specific questionnaire were moderate to low (three of four subscales with 16 students, all four with 190), despite acceptable full-instrument reliability — related
- Self-report factors correlate weakly with metacognitive behavior while within-factor subcomponent correlations are larger, per studies reviewed for the meta-analysis — a broader claim this one bears on
- In the case study, students answering the questionnaire while thinking aloud showed misunderstanding of items, general rather than task-specific reference perspectives, middle-category 'neutral' answering, and probable social desirability — related
- Think-aloud reports are incomplete and sometimes nonveridical, particularly for metacognitive processes — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
scale-level-correlations-elaboration-versus-orientation |
title |
At scale level, the questionnaire's Elaboration & evaluation scale correlated significantly with the same think-aloud scale (r=.60) while the Orientation & planning scale did not (r=.24) |
description |
At scale level, the questionnaire's Elaboration & evaluation scale correlated significantly with the same think-aloud scale (r=.60) while the Orientation & planning scale did not (r=.24) |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2011 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
recheck_by |
2014 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — gonny-schellings-2011 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.