ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
The Metacognitive and Neurocognitive Signatures of Test Methods in Academic Listening.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitive diagnostic assessment of EFL learners' listening barriers through incorrect responses.Frontiers in psychology · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to investigate whether and how test takers' academic listening test performance is predicted by their metacognitive and neurocognitive process under different test methods conditions. Eighty test takers completed two tests consisting of while-listening performance (WLP) and post-listening performance (PLP) test methods. Their metacognitive awareness was measured by the Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ), and gaze behavior and brain activation were measured by an eye-tracker and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), respectively. The results of automatic linear modeling indicated that WLP and PLP test performances were predicted by different factors. The predictors of WLP test performance included two metacognitive awareness measures (i.e., person knowledge and mental translation) and fixation duration. In contrast, the predictors of the PLP performance comprised two metacognitive awareness measures (i.e., mental translation and directed attention), visit counts, and importantly, three brain activity measures: the dmPFC measure in the answering phase, IFG measure in the listening phase, and IFG measure in the answering phase. Implications of these findings for language assessment are discussed.
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.