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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · checked against its sources 2026-10-19 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2014: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? When a questionnaire and think-aloud method were aimed at the same learning task and the same learning activities, they correlated r=.51 (one-tailed, marginal significance; p=.05), above the regularly reported range of -.07 to .42. → 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

Comparative study in which 16 ninth-graders studied a 1,650-word history text thinking aloud, then completed the task-specific questionnaire; Spearman's rho between methods was .51 (p=.05, one-tailed). The author notes this "was promising" against the reported -.07 to .42 range.

"The two methods showed a correlation of .51 (that reached a one-tailed, marginal significance; p=.05). This correlation might be seen as moderate, but as shown in our overall picture concerning the comparison of questionnaires with think-aloud measures, where correlations between complete instruments range from -.07 to .42, a .51 correlation was promising."

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
• 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) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Schellings' questionnaire-thinking-aloud convergent correlation of .51 rests on a small sample and is questionable against other studies — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• 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
• When SRL is measured at a coarse grain size (global self-regulation), students are relatively well able to report on their strategy use — related
• The only significant cross-method correlation within one SRL component is motivation assessed by questionnaire and closed-ended microanalytic questions — related
• In the case study, the student with the most coded activities scored highest on the questionnaire and the student with the fewest scored lowest, but all four over-rated Orienting & planning relative to their protocols — related
• When SRL is measured at a fine grain size (specific strategies), self-reports show low calibration with behavioral measures — 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
• Task-based and questionnaire-based EF measures show consistently low correlations and may assess partially distinct phenomena — related
• A general self-report metacognition questionnaire shows no relationship with word problem solving performance and no convergence with on-line metacognitive measures in grade 5 — related
• Think-aloud reports are incomplete and sometimes nonveridical, particularly for metacognitive processes — related