Accumulation and cross-text elaboration are uncorrelated and show opposite-sign correlations with intertextual comprehension¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2·i0negligible
Currency · newest study 2011 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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 i0 The two strategy scales were essentially uncorrelated (r=.03), and accumulation correlated negatively (r=−.28, p=.011) while cross-text elaboration correlated positively (r=.25, p=.021) with intertextual comprehension. → 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 · i0 · associational · r2
Zero-order correlations in the 71-student subsample (Table 3). The two strategy measures were themselves uncorrelated (r=.03); correlations with intratextual comprehension were lower and statistically non-significant (r=−.19 and r=.16).
"self-reported accumulation was negatively correlated ( r=−.28, p=.011) and self-reported cross-text elaboration was positively correlated ( r=.25, p=.021) with performance"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Self-reported multiple-text strategies did not predict intratextual comprehension, where prior knowledge was the unique predictor — related
- Self-reported accumulation negatively predicts intertextual comprehension while cross-text elaboration positively predicts it, after controlling for prior knowledge — related
- A task-specific multiple-text strategy inventory yields two correlated strategy dimensions: cross-text elaboration and accumulation of information — 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
- 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 |
strategy-dimensions-uncorrelated-opposite-correlations |
title |
Accumulation and cross-text elaboration are uncorrelated and show opposite-sign correlations with intertextual comprehension |
description |
Accumulation and cross-text elaboration are uncorrelated and show opposite-sign correlations with intertextual comprehension |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2011 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
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.