Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38046117›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

An analysis of the psychometric properties of the writing-specific cognitive strategies questionnaire for undergraduate students.

Olga Arias-Gundín, Patricia Robledo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Olga Arias-GundínDepartment of Psychology, Sociology and Philosophy, University of León, León, Spain.
Patricia RobledoDepartment of Psychology, Sociology and Philosophy, University of León, León, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Writing strategies are needed to manage the complexity of writing tasks, especially at university, where writing tasks are for learning, professional, or scientific purposes and are highly demanding. The literature shows that many undergraduate students have defined, stable, writing strategies, although some lack proper strategic development and require explicit instruction in this regard. In both cases, adapting writing tasks to undergraduate students' preferences and instructing them effectively requires understanding their writing strategies, which will encourage optimal learning and writing proficiency. This is why valid, reliable, writing strategy assessment tools are essential. The present study focused on the validation of the Spanish Writing Strategies Questionnaire-Undergraduate Students (WSQ-SU), aimed at measuring undergraduate students' preferences for using different writing strategies. The sample comprised 978 Spanish undergraduates doing degrees in Infant, Primary or Social Education, Pedagogy and Psychology. The data from the questionnaire was explored by means of exploratory and confirmatory analysis, test-retest reliability to analyse temporal stability and convergent validity. Two factors, planning and revising, were identified through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, representing different writing strategies and supporting the original model. The results indicated adequate test-retest reliability and temporal stability. The results also showed the questionnaire's convergent validity; a direct, linear correlation between two factors and off-line planning and revising variables. Based on the results, the WSQ for undergraduate students-Spanish version has been shown to be a reliable and valid, scale that can be easily applied in the university context to explore undergraduate students' writing strategies.

Indexed as

psychometricsquestionnaireundergraduate studentsvaliditywriting strategies

Identifiers

PMID38046117
PMCPMC10690414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.