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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2014: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In Study 1 (n=16) the full 58-item instrument reached α=.87 but subscales ranged from α=.26 (Executing) to α=.85 (Elaboration & evaluation); in Study 2 (n=190) the full instrument reached α=.79 with subscales from α=.35 to α=.69. → Gonny Schellings 2011 q2 i? In the larger-group study the full instrument was reasonably high (α=.79) but subscale consistencies remained moderate to low, leading the author to conclude the subscales were not clear indications of their intended constructs. → Gonny Schellings 2011 (2)

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

Reliability analysis in the comparative study (16 ninth-graders): full instrument α=.87, Elaboration & evaluation α=.85, but Orientation & planning α=.52, Executing α=.26, Monitoring α=.36.

"The full instrument (58 items) resulted in a fair reliability ( α=. 87) and the Elaboration & evaluation scale also reached a fair reliability (α=. 85). However, the reliabilities for the other three subscales were moderate (Orientation & planning α=.52) to low (Executing α=.26; Monitoring α=.36)."

Gonny Schellings 2011 (2)¶

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

Larger-group study administering the questionnaire to 190 ninth-graders after silent text study: full instrument α=.79, subscales α=.54, .35, .40 and .69, corresponding to Study 1's reliabilities. The author states the subscales "were not clear indications of the constructs these subscales were intended to measure."

"The overall, internal consistency for the questionnaire was reasonably high (α=.79). However, the internal consistency for each subscale appeared to be moderate to low: Orientation and planning ( α=.54), Executing ( α =.35), Monitoring ( α =.40), Elaboration and evaluation (=.69)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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) — related
• The MAKQ dimensions show acceptable internal consistency across both studies (alphas 0.77-0.93) — related
• Subscales of the adapted Internet Skills Scale show acceptable internal consistency, lowest for the Operational subscale — related
• Schellings' questionnaire-thinking-aloud convergent correlation of .51 rests on a small sample and is questionable against other studies — related
• Behavioural, cognitive and conceptual-to-consequential subscales of the QCGE-SAS show acceptable reliability, while the social engagement subscale shows unacceptable internal consistency — related
• Questionnaire constructs showed acceptable to strong internal consistency (α = 0.740 to 0.945) — related
• Item analysis showed high self-reported engagement and subscale differences in discriminatory power, with social engagement items weakest and cognitive engagement items strongest — related
• 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