基于表现的元认知测试与自我报告:预测告诉我们什么?

IF 2 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Jhonys de Araujo, Cristiano Mauro Assis Gomes, Enio Galinkin Jelihovschi
{"title":"基于表现的元认知测试与自我报告:预测告诉我们什么?","authors":"Jhonys de Araujo, Cristiano Mauro Assis Gomes, Enio Galinkin Jelihovschi","doi":"10.1186/s41155-025-00337-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The measurements of metacognition through performance-based tasks are better predictors of academic performance than those based on self-report tests, but evidence on the prediction of academic performance by standardized performance-based metacognition tests is scarce. The reason is that there are few tests of this nature with psychometric evidence of validity and reliability. Only a single study with Honduran university students compared the prediction of academic performance by a standardized performance-based test, and a self-report test in which both measure cognition regulation, a metacognitive construct. The results indicated that only the standardized performance-based test predicts academic performance, and the measures of these tests are not correlated.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Two hypotheses are investigated in this article: (1) performance-based metacognitive tests predict academic performance better than self-report metacognitive tests; (2) there is a null correlation between measures of cognition regulation from performance-based standardized tests and self-report tests.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A sample of 264 university students and graduates from Brazil, with an average age of 21.1 years, is used in the study. The majority are female, from private institutions, and enrolled in humanities and social sciences courses. The Meta-Text was used as the standardized performance-based test, and the self-report test was the Metacognitive Self-Regulation Scale of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The predictors were cognition regulation, measured by both tests, and judgment, measured by the Meta-Text. The outcome was the overall score on the National High School Exam, a large-scale educational assessment for university admission.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only the regulation of cognition measured by Meta-Text predicts academic performance (β = 0.47, CI 95% [0.36, 0.58]). The correlations between the test measures were null (r = .002, p = .974).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The evidence corroborated both hypotheses and raises doubts about the quality of self-report tests for measuring cognition regulation. It also indicates that standardized performance-based tests have a similar predictive capacity to tasks that require performance. This result is promising because standardized tests are easy to apply and correct, allowing studies to be carried out on large samples, while performance-based tasks require a complex process, only feasible in studies on small samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":46901,"journal":{"name":"Psicologia-Reflexao E Critica","volume":"38 1","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12496323/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance-based metacognitive tests versus self-report: what does prediction tell us?\",\"authors\":\"Jhonys de Araujo, Cristiano Mauro Assis Gomes, Enio Galinkin Jelihovschi\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41155-025-00337-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The measurements of metacognition through performance-based tasks are better predictors of academic performance than those based on self-report tests, but evidence on the prediction of academic performance by standardized performance-based metacognition tests is scarce. The reason is that there are few tests of this nature with psychometric evidence of validity and reliability. Only a single study with Honduran university students compared the prediction of academic performance by a standardized performance-based test, and a self-report test in which both measure cognition regulation, a metacognitive construct. The results indicated that only the standardized performance-based test predicts academic performance, and the measures of these tests are not correlated.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Two hypotheses are investigated in this article: (1) performance-based metacognitive tests predict academic performance better than self-report metacognitive tests; (2) there is a null correlation between measures of cognition regulation from performance-based standardized tests and self-report tests.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A sample of 264 university students and graduates from Brazil, with an average age of 21.1 years, is used in the study. The majority are female, from private institutions, and enrolled in humanities and social sciences courses. The Meta-Text was used as the standardized performance-based test, and the self-report test was the Metacognitive Self-Regulation Scale of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The predictors were cognition regulation, measured by both tests, and judgment, measured by the Meta-Text. The outcome was the overall score on the National High School Exam, a large-scale educational assessment for university admission.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only the regulation of cognition measured by Meta-Text predicts academic performance (β = 0.47, CI 95% [0.36, 0.58]). The correlations between the test measures were null (r = .002, p = .974).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The evidence corroborated both hypotheses and raises doubts about the quality of self-report tests for measuring cognition regulation. It also indicates that standardized performance-based tests have a similar predictive capacity to tasks that require performance. This result is promising because standardized tests are easy to apply and correct, allowing studies to be carried out on large samples, while performance-based tasks require a complex process, only feasible in studies on small samples.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46901,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psicologia-Reflexao E Critica\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12496323/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psicologia-Reflexao E Critica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-025-00337-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psicologia-Reflexao E Critica","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-025-00337-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基于成绩任务的元认知测量比基于自我报告测试的元认知测量能更好地预测学业成绩,但基于成绩的标准化元认知测试预测学业成绩的证据很少。原因是很少有这种性质的测试具有效度和信度的心理测量证据。只有一项针对洪都拉斯大学生的研究比较了标准化成绩测试和自我报告测试对学业成绩的预测,两者都测量认知调节,一种元认知结构。结果表明,只有标准化的基于成绩的测试才能预测学习成绩,并且这些测试的测量不相关。目的:研究两个假设:(1)基于成绩的元认知测验比自我报告的元认知测验更能预测学习成绩;(2)基于成绩的标准化测试的认知调节测量与自我报告测试之间存在零相关。方法:选取264名平均年龄21.1岁的巴西大学生和毕业生作为研究样本。大多数是女性,来自私立机构,就读于人文和社会科学课程。采用元文本作为标准化成绩测试,自述测试采用学习动机策略元认知自我调节量表(MSLQ)。预测因子是认知调节(由两个测试测量)和判断(由元文本测量)。结果是全国高中考试的综合成绩,这是一项大规模的大学入学教育评估。结果:只有元文本测量的认知调节才能预测学习成绩(β = 0.47, CI 95%[0.36, 0.58])。检验指标之间的相关性为零(r =)。002, p = .974)。结论:证据证实了这两个假设,并对测量认知调节的自我报告测试的质量提出了质疑。它还表明,标准化的基于性能的测试与需要性能的任务具有相似的预测能力。这个结果是有希望的,因为标准化测试很容易应用和纠正,允许在大样本上进行研究,而基于性能的任务需要一个复杂的过程,只适用于小样本的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Performance-based metacognitive tests versus self-report: what does prediction tell us?

Background: The measurements of metacognition through performance-based tasks are better predictors of academic performance than those based on self-report tests, but evidence on the prediction of academic performance by standardized performance-based metacognition tests is scarce. The reason is that there are few tests of this nature with psychometric evidence of validity and reliability. Only a single study with Honduran university students compared the prediction of academic performance by a standardized performance-based test, and a self-report test in which both measure cognition regulation, a metacognitive construct. The results indicated that only the standardized performance-based test predicts academic performance, and the measures of these tests are not correlated.

Objective: Two hypotheses are investigated in this article: (1) performance-based metacognitive tests predict academic performance better than self-report metacognitive tests; (2) there is a null correlation between measures of cognition regulation from performance-based standardized tests and self-report tests.

Method: A sample of 264 university students and graduates from Brazil, with an average age of 21.1 years, is used in the study. The majority are female, from private institutions, and enrolled in humanities and social sciences courses. The Meta-Text was used as the standardized performance-based test, and the self-report test was the Metacognitive Self-Regulation Scale of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The predictors were cognition regulation, measured by both tests, and judgment, measured by the Meta-Text. The outcome was the overall score on the National High School Exam, a large-scale educational assessment for university admission.

Results: Only the regulation of cognition measured by Meta-Text predicts academic performance (β = 0.47, CI 95% [0.36, 0.58]). The correlations between the test measures were null (r = .002, p = .974).

Conclusion: The evidence corroborated both hypotheses and raises doubts about the quality of self-report tests for measuring cognition regulation. It also indicates that standardized performance-based tests have a similar predictive capacity to tasks that require performance. This result is promising because standardized tests are easy to apply and correct, allowing studies to be carried out on large samples, while performance-based tasks require a complex process, only feasible in studies on small samples.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psicologia-Reflexao E Critica
Psicologia-Reflexao E Critica PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Psicologia: Reflexão & Crítica is a journal published three times a year by Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia do Desenvolvimento (Psychology Graduate Program) of the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul). Its objective is to publish original works in the psychology field: articles, short reports on research and reviews as well as to present to the scientific community texts which reflect a significant contribution for the psychology field. The short title of the journal is Psicol. Refl. Crít. It must be used regarding bibliographies, footnotes, as well as bibliographical strips and references.
×
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