ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2021
Validation of Metacognitive Awareness Inventory from a Private Medical University in India.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- E-Learning Modules Based on Bloom Taxonomy and the Miller Pyramid for First-Year Indian Medical Students: Randomized Controlled Study in Medical Education.JMIR human factors · 2026Trial
- Leveraging generative AI to foster metacognition and self-directed learning.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2026Article
- Role of Metacognitive Awareness and Academic Motivation in Medical Undergraduates' Academic Performance: An Observational Study.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2025Article
- Metamemory functioning and memory strategies used among medical students.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMetacognition is the awareness and the capability to regulate one's own thinking process. Metacognition is critical in medical education for clinical reasoning and management. Hence, the objective of this study is to evaluate the construct validity and reliability of the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) among first-year medical and dental students, from a private medical university in India, using confirmatory analysis and internal consistency method. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study using convenient sampling. Fifty-two-item MAI was administered to 933 first-year medical and dental students from a private medical university in India. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), principal component analysis, Cronbach's α, and confirmatory factor analysis with global fit indices were performed. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed to evaluate the relationship between the structural path and factors using AMOS version 22.
resultsDuring EFA, 12 items with <0.40 factor loadings were trimmed sequentially. The remaining items with respective factors had a good internal consistency of ≥ 0.9. Comparative fit index (0.78), goodness-of-fit index (0.8), adjusted goodness of fit index (0.77), Tucker-Lewis index (0.7), standardized root mean square residual (0.06), and root mean square error of approximation (0.09) values showed that six-factor model fits to satisfactory. Pearson's correlation coefficient was found to be high between factors (>0.80). SEM for each item (observed) and factor (unobserved) illustrated the hypothesized model.
conclusionThe resultant 40-item model based on MAI designed by Schraw is a valid and reliable tool for assessing the metacognitive awareness of Indian students. Employing a valid and reliable tool in assessing the metacognitive awareness will help the academicians in incorporating appropriate curricular interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.