ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Development and validation of the socially shared regulated learning questionnaire: insights from a second-order confirmatory factor analysis.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study addresses a critical methodological gap by developing and validating a psychometrically robust, multidimensional socially shared regulated learning (SSRL) questionnaire. Grounded in contemporary theories of collaborative learning and regulation, the questionnaire comprises four theoretically informed dimensions: Shared Goal Setting and Planning, Shared Monitoring and Control, Shared Reflection and Evaluation, and Shared Motivational and Emotional Regulation. Employing a two-phase methodological design, the study first refined questionnaire items through a think-aloud protocol (TAP) with a diverse student sample. Subsequently, the refined instrument was administered to 378 university students, and its structural validity and reliability were evaluated via second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results demonstrated excellent internal consistency (
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.