ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Survey measures of metacognitive monitoring are often false.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accounting for response styles in rating data using IRT and IRTree models: A tutorial in R with applications to self-reported metacognitive competence.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Metacognitive Monitoring Predicts and Enhances Emotion Management Knowledge.Affective science · 2026Article
- Metacognitive ability is associated with reduced emotion suppression.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Investigating the impact of metacognitive regulation on students' academic performance: a quantitative study of Chinese distance learners.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Metacognitive monitoring and calibration in the vocal emotion recognition task.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Cognitive control and metacognitive awareness: do they shape academic achievement in university students?Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Metacognitive monitoring is an extremely important ability that predicts a wide range of outcomes. However, do people have insight into their own metacognitive monitoring capacity? This study measured participants' perceived metacognitive monitoring abilities using a novel psychometrically validated questionnaire (Study 1) and then examined how well survey responses aligned with online measures of metacognitive monitoring (resolution, discrimination, sensitivity, efficiency) taken from confidence ratings participants made while performing a perceptual decision-making task and Raven's Progressive Matrices (Study 2). We found a negative correlation between the questionnaire responses and many of the online measures of metacognitive monitoring - those who reported being better at metacognitive monitoring, in fact tended to be worse according to the online metacognitive ratings. This occurred because, in general, high self-perceptions of monitoring ability were, in fact, related to higher confidence and lower cognitive performance. These findings suggest that we may have inaccurate insights into our own metacognitive monitoring capacity and questionnaire-based measures of metacognitive abilities may be problematic as they may represent unrealistic self-perceptions.
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.