Self-reported multiple-text strategies did not predict intratextual comprehension, where prior knowledge was the unique predictor¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
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? Adding accumulation and cross-text elaboration to prior knowledge did not significantly increase explained variance in intratextual comprehension; only prior knowledge uniquely predicted it (β=.36, p=.002). → Ivar Bråten & Helge I. Strømsø 2011
Evidence¶
Ivar Bråten & Helge I. Strømsø 2011¶
Ivar Bråten & Helge I. Strømsø. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition Learning 6:111–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9075-7
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Hierarchical multiple regression with intratextual comprehension (IntraVT) as the dependent variable in the same 71-student subsample. Prior knowledge entered at Step 1 was significant (F(1, 69)=13.32, p=.001, R²=.16); the strategy step was not, and "only prior knowledge uniquely predicted scores on the IntraVT, β=.36, p=.002".
"The addition of accumulation and cross-text elaboration scores in Step 2 did not result in a statistically significant increment in the variance accounted for, Fchange(2, 67)=.97, p=.385, R²=.18."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Intratextual integration dominates while intertextual integration is rare in sixth graders' multiple-text writing
- Reading comprehension measured with open questions uniquely predicts integration while cloze-measured comprehension does not
- Self-reported accumulation negatively predicts intertextual comprehension while cross-text elaboration positively predicts it, after controlling for prior knowledge
- Accumulation and cross-text elaboration are uncorrelated and show opposite-sign correlations with intertextual comprehension — related
- 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
- An emotional connection to nature, rather than conservation knowledge, is a powerful predictor of children's conservation behavior — related
- Prior knowledge significantly predicted comprehension and transfer performance in the replication, and motivation during learning predicted retention — related
- Metacognition and comprehension strategy use are weakly to moderately associated with intertextual integration among K-12 students — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
strategies-not-predict-intratextual-comprehension |
title |
Self-reported multiple-text strategies did not predict intratextual comprehension, where prior knowledge was the unique predictor |
description |
Self-reported multiple-text strategies did not predict intratextual comprehension, where prior knowledge was the unique predictor |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2011 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — ivar-bråten-helge-i-strømsø-2011 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.