Evaluating the metacognitive awareness inventory using empirical factor-structure evidence
Many scholars agree on the general theoretical structure of metacognition, which is what informed the development of the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). Although self-report instruments such as the MAI suffer many threats to validity, they continue to be used in research and practice becaus...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Metacognition and learning 2018-04, Vol.13 (1), p.15-38 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 38 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 15 |
| container_title | Metacognition and learning |
| container_volume | 13 |
| creator | Harrison, George M. Vallin, Lisa M. |
| description | Many scholars agree on the general theoretical structure of metacognition, which is what informed the development of the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). Although self-report instruments such as the MAI suffer many threats to validity, they continue to be used in research and practice because of their convenience. With the MAI, studies have varied in the way they calculate scores and in their adherence to the intended theory. In this study, we address these shortcomings and propose modifications in calculating MAI scores. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit (MRCML) item-response modeling, we examined how well the intended functioning of the MAI matched the data from 622 undergraduate students. The results support scoring the MAI as two dimensions, knowledge and regulation of cognition, but indicate that the 52-item instrument has poor fit. Using iterative CFA and MRCML models, we tested subsets of items that represent the theory and had good fit. We followed up with tests of between-group and time invariance. The results support the use of a 19-item subset for between-group comparisons, with provisional evidence for its use in longitudinal studies. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11409-017-9176-z |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2015589753</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1172608</ericid><sourcerecordid>2015589753</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-9c9ad6ac1f2f31c9d1b6c85f01d38da56d88e53cdebbfeeee87354387a3f96c03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UE1LAzEQDaJgrf4AD8KC52hms5vNHqXULwQvevES0uykbmmzNclW2l9vyko9OZcZ5r03w3uEXAK7Acaq2wBQsJoyqGgNlaC7IzKCshQUBIfjw5zzU3IWwoKxoihEPiIf041e9jq2bp7FT8xWGLXp5q6N7QYz_a09Ogwha90GXez8NuvDnourdetbo5eZ1SbtaYi-N7H3mOGmbdAZPCcnVi8DXvz2MXm_n75NHunL68PT5O6FmoIVkdam1o3QBmxuOZi6gZkwsrQMGi4bXYpGSiy5aXA2s5hKVrwsuKw0t7UwjI_J9XB37buvHkNUi673Lr1UOUu-ZV2VPLFgYBnfheDRqrVvV9pvFTC1j1ANEaoUodpHqHZJczVoMFk98KfPAFUumEx4PuAhYW6O_u_z_0d_AMFkgPc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2015589753</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluating the metacognitive awareness inventory using empirical factor-structure evidence</title><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Harrison, George M. ; Vallin, Lisa M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Harrison, George M. ; Vallin, Lisa M.</creatorcontrib><description>Many scholars agree on the general theoretical structure of metacognition, which is what informed the development of the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). Although self-report instruments such as the MAI suffer many threats to validity, they continue to be used in research and practice because of their convenience. With the MAI, studies have varied in the way they calculate scores and in their adherence to the intended theory. In this study, we address these shortcomings and propose modifications in calculating MAI scores. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit (MRCML) item-response modeling, we examined how well the intended functioning of the MAI matched the data from 622 undergraduate students. The results support scoring the MAI as two dimensions, knowledge and regulation of cognition, but indicate that the 52-item instrument has poor fit. Using iterative CFA and MRCML models, we tested subsets of items that represent the theory and had good fit. We followed up with tests of between-group and time invariance. The results support the use of a 19-item subset for between-group comparisons, with provisional evidence for its use in longitudinal studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1556-1623</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1556-1631</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11409-017-9176-z</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Discriminant analysis ; Education ; Factor Analysis ; Factor Structure ; Goodness of Fit ; Item Response Theory ; Learning and Instruction ; Longitudinal Studies ; Measures (Individuals) ; Metacognition ; Scores ; Self evaluation ; Self report ; Teaching and Teacher Education ; Undergraduate Students</subject><ispartof>Metacognition and learning, 2018-04, Vol.13 (1), p.15-38</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017</rights><rights>Metacognition and Learning is a copyright of Springer, (2017). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-9c9ad6ac1f2f31c9d1b6c85f01d38da56d88e53cdebbfeeee87354387a3f96c03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-9c9ad6ac1f2f31c9d1b6c85f01d38da56d88e53cdebbfeeee87354387a3f96c03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11409-017-9176-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11409-017-9176-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923,41486,42555,51317</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1172608$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Harrison, George M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vallin, Lisa M.</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluating the metacognitive awareness inventory using empirical factor-structure evidence</title><title>Metacognition and learning</title><addtitle>Metacognition Learning</addtitle><description>Many scholars agree on the general theoretical structure of metacognition, which is what informed the development of the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). Although self-report instruments such as the MAI suffer many threats to validity, they continue to be used in research and practice because of their convenience. With the MAI, studies have varied in the way they calculate scores and in their adherence to the intended theory. In this study, we address these shortcomings and propose modifications in calculating MAI scores. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit (MRCML) item-response modeling, we examined how well the intended functioning of the MAI matched the data from 622 undergraduate students. The results support scoring the MAI as two dimensions, knowledge and regulation of cognition, but indicate that the 52-item instrument has poor fit. Using iterative CFA and MRCML models, we tested subsets of items that represent the theory and had good fit. We followed up with tests of between-group and time invariance. The results support the use of a 19-item subset for between-group comparisons, with provisional evidence for its use in longitudinal studies.</description><subject>Discriminant analysis</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Factor Analysis</subject><subject>Factor Structure</subject><subject>Goodness of Fit</subject><subject>Item Response Theory</subject><subject>Learning and Instruction</subject><subject>Longitudinal Studies</subject><subject>Measures (Individuals)</subject><subject>Metacognition</subject><subject>Scores</subject><subject>Self evaluation</subject><subject>Self report</subject><subject>Teaching and Teacher Education</subject><subject>Undergraduate Students</subject><issn>1556-1623</issn><issn>1556-1631</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UE1LAzEQDaJgrf4AD8KC52hms5vNHqXULwQvevES0uykbmmzNclW2l9vyko9OZcZ5r03w3uEXAK7Acaq2wBQsJoyqGgNlaC7IzKCshQUBIfjw5zzU3IWwoKxoihEPiIf041e9jq2bp7FT8xWGLXp5q6N7QYz_a09Ogwha90GXez8NuvDnourdetbo5eZ1SbtaYi-N7H3mOGmbdAZPCcnVi8DXvz2MXm_n75NHunL68PT5O6FmoIVkdam1o3QBmxuOZi6gZkwsrQMGi4bXYpGSiy5aXA2s5hKVrwsuKw0t7UwjI_J9XB37buvHkNUi673Lr1UOUu-ZV2VPLFgYBnfheDRqrVvV9pvFTC1j1ANEaoUodpHqHZJczVoMFk98KfPAFUumEx4PuAhYW6O_u_z_0d_AMFkgPc</recordid><startdate>20180401</startdate><enddate>20180401</enddate><creator>Harrison, George M.</creator><creator>Vallin, Lisa M.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180401</creationdate><title>Evaluating the metacognitive awareness inventory using empirical factor-structure evidence</title><author>Harrison, George M. ; Vallin, Lisa M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-9c9ad6ac1f2f31c9d1b6c85f01d38da56d88e53cdebbfeeee87354387a3f96c03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Discriminant analysis</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Factor Analysis</topic><topic>Factor Structure</topic><topic>Goodness of Fit</topic><topic>Item Response Theory</topic><topic>Learning and Instruction</topic><topic>Longitudinal Studies</topic><topic>Measures (Individuals)</topic><topic>Metacognition</topic><topic>Scores</topic><topic>Self evaluation</topic><topic>Self report</topic><topic>Teaching and Teacher Education</topic><topic>Undergraduate Students</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Harrison, George M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vallin, Lisa M.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Metacognition and learning</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Harrison, George M.</au><au>Vallin, Lisa M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1172608</ericid><atitle>Evaluating the metacognitive awareness inventory using empirical factor-structure evidence</atitle><jtitle>Metacognition and learning</jtitle><stitle>Metacognition Learning</stitle><date>2018-04-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>15</spage><epage>38</epage><pages>15-38</pages><issn>1556-1623</issn><eissn>1556-1631</eissn><abstract>Many scholars agree on the general theoretical structure of metacognition, which is what informed the development of the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). Although self-report instruments such as the MAI suffer many threats to validity, they continue to be used in research and practice because of their convenience. With the MAI, studies have varied in the way they calculate scores and in their adherence to the intended theory. In this study, we address these shortcomings and propose modifications in calculating MAI scores. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit (MRCML) item-response modeling, we examined how well the intended functioning of the MAI matched the data from 622 undergraduate students. The results support scoring the MAI as two dimensions, knowledge and regulation of cognition, but indicate that the 52-item instrument has poor fit. Using iterative CFA and MRCML models, we tested subsets of items that represent the theory and had good fit. We followed up with tests of between-group and time invariance. The results support the use of a 19-item subset for between-group comparisons, with provisional evidence for its use in longitudinal studies.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s11409-017-9176-z</doi><tpages>24</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1556-1623 |
| ispartof | Metacognition and learning, 2018-04, Vol.13 (1), p.15-38 |
| issn | 1556-1623 1556-1631 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2015589753 |
| source | EBSCOhost Education Source; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Discriminant analysis Education Factor Analysis Factor Structure Goodness of Fit Item Response Theory Learning and Instruction Longitudinal Studies Measures (Individuals) Metacognition Scores Self evaluation Self report Teaching and Teacher Education Undergraduate Students |
| title | Evaluating the metacognitive awareness inventory using empirical factor-structure evidence |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T23%3A48%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluating%20the%20metacognitive%20awareness%20inventory%20using%20empirical%20factor-structure%20evidence&rft.jtitle=Metacognition%20and%20learning&rft.au=Harrison,%20George%20M.&rft.date=2018-04-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=15&rft.epage=38&rft.pages=15-38&rft.issn=1556-1623&rft.eissn=1556-1631&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11409-017-9176-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2015589753%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2015589753&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1172608&rfr_iscdi=true |