Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/31123
Appears in Collections:Psychology Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Evaluating Metacognitive Self-reports: Systematic Reviews of the value of self-report in metacognitive research
Author(s): Craig, Kymberly
Hale, Dan
Grainger, Catherine
Stewart, Mary
Contact Email: catherine.grainger@stir.ac.uk
Keywords: Metacognition
Cognitive ability
Self-report
Factor structure
Psychological theories
Student characteristics
Issue Date: Aug-2020
Citation: Craig K, Hale D, Grainger C & Stewart M (2020) Evaluating Metacognitive Self-reports: Systematic Reviews of the value of self-report in metacognitive research. Metacognition and Learning, 15 (2), p. 155–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09222-y
Abstract: Metacognitive skills have been shown to be strongly associated with academic achievement and serve as the basis of many therapeutic treatments for mental health conditions. Thus, it is likely that training metacognitive skills can lead to improved academic skills and health and well-being. Because metacognition is an awareness of one’s own thoughts, and as such is not directly observable, it is often measured by self-report. This study reviews and critiques the use of self-report in evaluating metacognition by conducting systematic reviews and a meta-analysis of studies assessing metacognitive skills. Keyword searches were performed in EbscoHost, ERIC, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, Scopus, Web of Science, and WorldWideScience.org to locate all articles evaluating metacognition through self-report. 24,396 articles from 1982 through 2018 were screened for inclusion in the study. Firstly, a systematic review of twenty-two articles was conducted to review the ability of self-report measures to evaluate a proposed taxonomy of metacognition. Secondly, a systematic review and meta-analyses of 37 studies summarizes the ability of self-report to relate to metacognitive behavior and the possible effects of differences in research methods. Results suggest that self-reports provide a useful overview of two factors – metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. However, metacognitive processes as measured by self-report subscales are unclear. Conversely, the two factors of metacognition do not adequately relate to metacognitive behavior, but subscales strongly correlate across self-reports and metacognitive tasks. Future research should carefully consider the role of self-reports when designing research evaluating metacognition.
DOI Link: 10.1007/s11409-020-09222-y
Rights: This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Licence URL(s): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Craig2020_Article_EvaluatingMetacognitiveSelf-re.pdfFulltext - Published Version1.74 MBAdobe PDFView/Open



This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.