Meta2: A meta-analysis and psychometric evaluation of the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) in the context of health professions education.

IF 5.2 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Andrew S Cale, Elizabeth R Agosto, Brenda Kucha Anak Ganeng, Megan E Kruskie, Margaret A McNulty, Kyle A Robertson, Cecelia J Vetter, Sabrina C Woods, Md Nazmul Karim, Adam B Wilson
{"title":"Meta<sup>2</sup>: A meta-analysis and psychometric evaluation of the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) in the context of health professions education.","authors":"Andrew S Cale, Elizabeth R Agosto, Brenda Kucha Anak Ganeng, Megan E Kruskie, Margaret A McNulty, Kyle A Robertson, Cecelia J Vetter, Sabrina C Woods, Md Nazmul Karim, Adam B Wilson","doi":"10.1002/ase.70085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To keep pace with medicine's unpredictable changes, medical trainees must learn to accurately monitor and evaluate themselves via metacognition (i.e., thinking about thinking). The Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) can assess and guide the metacognitive development of trainees. This study summarizes existing psychometric evidence and meta-analyzes the internal consistency of the MAI across studies involving health professions education. In 2023, a literature search was performed across six databases for records that met predefined inclusion criteria. After two rounds of screening, MAI validity and reliability data were extracted from the eligible studies for analysis. Validity evidence for the dichotomous, five-point Likert, and sliding analog versions of the MAI were rated and analyzed according to \"test content,\" \"response processes,\" \"internal structure,\" \"relations to other variables,\" and \"consequences of testing.\" The internal consistency range (min-max) of the MAI was estimated using random-effects, restricted maximum likelihood (REML) meta-analysis. Among the 1966 records screened, 23 studies met the inclusion criteria. The five-point Likert version of the MAI was the most supported, with validity evidence in the \"test content,\" \"internal structure,\" and \"relations to other variables\" categories. None of the MAI versions presented evidence related to \"response processes\" or \"consequences of testing.\" The lowest aggregated internal consistency was estimated to be 0.805 and the highest as 0.844, suggesting very good reliability. The five-point Likert scale version of the MAI is most supported for use in health professions education, though validation efforts should continue to address all five sources of validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":124,"journal":{"name":"Anatomical Sciences Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anatomical Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.70085","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To keep pace with medicine's unpredictable changes, medical trainees must learn to accurately monitor and evaluate themselves via metacognition (i.e., thinking about thinking). The Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) can assess and guide the metacognitive development of trainees. This study summarizes existing psychometric evidence and meta-analyzes the internal consistency of the MAI across studies involving health professions education. In 2023, a literature search was performed across six databases for records that met predefined inclusion criteria. After two rounds of screening, MAI validity and reliability data were extracted from the eligible studies for analysis. Validity evidence for the dichotomous, five-point Likert, and sliding analog versions of the MAI were rated and analyzed according to "test content," "response processes," "internal structure," "relations to other variables," and "consequences of testing." The internal consistency range (min-max) of the MAI was estimated using random-effects, restricted maximum likelihood (REML) meta-analysis. Among the 1966 records screened, 23 studies met the inclusion criteria. The five-point Likert version of the MAI was the most supported, with validity evidence in the "test content," "internal structure," and "relations to other variables" categories. None of the MAI versions presented evidence related to "response processes" or "consequences of testing." The lowest aggregated internal consistency was estimated to be 0.805 and the highest as 0.844, suggesting very good reliability. The five-point Likert scale version of the MAI is most supported for use in health professions education, though validation efforts should continue to address all five sources of validity.

Meta2:卫生专业教育背景下元认知意识量表(MAI)的meta分析和心理测量学评价。
为了跟上医学不可预测的变化,医学学员必须学会通过元认知(即思考思考)来准确地监测和评估自己。元认知意识量表(MAI)可以评估和指导学员的元认知发展。本研究总结了现有的心理测量证据,并荟萃分析了涉及卫生专业教育的研究中MAI的内部一致性。2023年,在六个数据库中进行了文献检索,以寻找符合预定义纳入标准的记录。经过两轮筛选,从符合条件的研究中提取MAI效度和信度数据进行分析。根据“测试内容”、“反应过程”、“内部结构”、“与其他变量的关系”和“测试结果”,对MAI的二分法、五点李克特和滑动模拟版本的有效性证据进行评级和分析。使用随机效应、限制最大似然(REML) meta分析估计MAI的内部一致性范围(min-max)。在筛选的1966项记录中,有23项研究符合纳入标准。五点李克特版本的MAI是最受支持的,在“测试内容”、“内部结构”和“与其他变量的关系”类别中有效度证据。没有一个MAI版本提供与“反应过程”或“测试结果”相关的证据。综合内部一致性最低估计为0.805,最高估计为0.844,信度很好。MAI的五点李克特量表版本最支持在卫生专业教育中使用,尽管验证工作应继续解决所有五个效度来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anatomical Sciences Education
Anatomical Sciences Education Anatomy/education-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
39.70%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Anatomical Sciences Education, affiliated with the American Association for Anatomy, serves as an international platform for sharing ideas, innovations, and research related to education in anatomical sciences. Covering gross anatomy, embryology, histology, and neurosciences, the journal addresses education at various levels, including undergraduate, graduate, post-graduate, allied health, medical (both allopathic and osteopathic), and dental. It fosters collaboration and discussion in the field of anatomical sciences education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信